M/S Epitome Builders Pvt. Ltd., v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2026WP/37682/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TDR transfer BBMP; Transferable Development Rights Certificate No.001931 transfer representation not considered; mandamus to Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition and TDR) BBMP to decide within 30 days; statutory duty to consider representations with reasons; writ of mandamus Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Epitome Builders Pvt Ltd v State of Karnataka; High Court of Karnataka 2026; NC: 2026:KHC:10947; WP No. 37682 of 2025 (LB-BMP); Suraj Govindaraj J.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus directing respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 17.11.2023 and 05.10.2024 (Annexures-D and D1) and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within thirty days from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶¶41

M/S Epitome Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the competent respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 17.11.2023 (Annexure-D) and 05.10.2024 (Annexure-D1) seeking transfer of TDR Certificate No.001931 and pass orders thereon.

¶¶32

Court's answer

Whenever any application or representation is submitted, the statutory authorities are required to consider it and pass necessary orders either accepting or rejecting it, accompanied by reasons.

¶¶39

Ratio / Principle

Mandamus issued directing respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 17.11.2023 and 05.10.2024 (Annexures-D and D1) and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within thirty days from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶¶46

Key takeaways

The Court expressly did not express any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner; the question of entitlement was left open.obiter¶¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-BMP) No. 37682 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Suraj Govindaraj, J.), decided 21.02.2026: The petitioner, claiming to be the purchaser of TDR Certificate No.001931 (Ledger Folio No.58, dated 23.01.2022), sought mandamus compelling consideration of its representations dated 17.11.2023 (Annexure-D) and 05.10.2024 (Annexure-D1) for transfer of the TDR, which had neither been considered nor disposed of by any order. Held: whenever any application or representation is submitted, statutory authorities are required to consider it and pass necessary orders either accepting or rejecting it, accompanied by reasons. Writ petition allowed; mandamus issued to respondent No.3 (Deputy Commissioner, Land Acquisition and TDR, BBMP) to consider both representations and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within thirty days of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the petitioner's entitlement.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:10947 WP No. 37682 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 37682 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S EPITOME BUILDERS PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.40/4, 2ND FLOOR, WELLINGTON STREET, RICHMOND TOWN, BENGALURU-25

¶9

REPRESENTED BY MR. SYED HIDAYATHULLA S/O LATE. SYED ABDUL JALEEL, AGED ABOUT YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP), N.R. SQUARE,

¶17

BENGALURU - 560 002

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAND ACQUISITION AND TDR) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP), N.R. SQUARE,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:10947 WP No. 37682 of 2025

HC-KAR

BENGALURU - 560 002.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIYAPPA, AGA FOR R1 SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.4 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION DATED 17.11.2023 (ANNEXURE-D) B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.4 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DATED 05.10.2024 (ANNEXURE-D1) ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1.

¶30

Sri. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶31

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶32

a. Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.4 to consider the petitioners representation dated 17.11.2023 (Annexure-D);

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:10947 WP No. 37682 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.10.2024 (Annexure-D1);

¶37

c. Pass such other writ, order, or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the 4case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶38

Petitioner claims to be the purchaser of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Certificate No.001931 Ledger Folio No.58 dated 23.01.2022 and as such, had called upon the respondents to transfer the same. The said representation not even considered and no order has been passed, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶39

Whenever any application or representation is submitted, it is but required for the Statutory Authorities to consider the same and pass necessary orders either by accepting or rejecting. Needless to say, in either case to be accompanied by reasons. In the present matter neither having been done, I passed the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) Writ petition is allowed .

¶42

ii) A Mandamus is issued directing respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representations dated

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:10947 WP No. 37682 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

17.11.2023 and 05.10.2024 at Annexures-D and D1, respectively and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner.

¶48

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶49

GJM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

M/S Epitome Builders Pvt. Ltd., v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Epitome Builders Pvt. Ltd., v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India Vs United Breweries (Holdings) Limited (in Liquidation)

Official Liquidator of Vs Sri.N.R.Rukmangada

Mr R B Kamath Vs Official Liquidator of M/S Kamath Packaging Limited (in Liquidation)

G N Suresh Vs State of Karnataka

Padma Vs the Commissioner

G v Doreswamy Vs the State of Karnataka