Disposed

M/S Dhruvija Nisarga v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2026WP/38801/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a mandamus directing the Bangalore Development Authority to approve a plan application filed on 12.09.2025. BDA's counsel undertook to take a decision as per law. The court disposed of the petition directing BDA to pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

BDA directed to pass orders on the plan approval application dated 12.09.2025 within six weeks of receipt of certified copy of the order.

M/S Dhruvija Nisarga Vs the State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2641 WP No. 38801 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 38801 OF 2025 (BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S DHRUVIJA NISARGA A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.50, SAROJA CHAMBERS, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, NEHRUNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI.M.R.NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O RAMA RAO.

¶10

Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. SHASHIKALA N., AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, W/O. SRI.T.KRISHNAMURTHY, RESIDING AT NO.58/40, 40^TH CROSS, 8^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 082, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, M/S. MANDAKINI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. M.R.NARASIMHAMURTHY.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR G., ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:2641 WP No. 38801 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 4^TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶19

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,

¶20

THE TOWN PLANNING MEMBER, THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. AJAYKUMAR M, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOS.1 TO 3 HEREIN TO APPROVE THE PLAN FILED BY THE 2^ND PETITIONER VIDE APPLICATION DATED 12.09.2025 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ISSUE THE APPROVAL SOUGHT FOR THEREIN AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:2641 WP No. 38801 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The present petition has been filed seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to approve the plan filed by petitioner No.2 by way of an application dated 12.09.2025 at Annexure-A.

¶31

It is the case of the petitioners that an application has been made on 12.09.2025 for sanction of plan in respect of schedule properties and till date no action has been taken.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for respondent - Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) submits that an appropriate decision would be taken as per law.

¶33

In light of the relief sought for, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent - BDA to pass appropriate orders on the application seeking approval of plan dated 12.09.2025. Such decision and appropriate orders to be passed within a

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:2641 WP No. 38801 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified

¶38

copy of the order.

¶39

Needless to state, if the respondent-BDA is unable to take a decision, necessarily time for extension will have to be taken before this Court.

¶40

Accordingly, petition is disposed of .

¶41

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶42

MCR

M/S Dhruvija Nisarga v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Dhruvija Nisarga v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suni Haribahupote Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Mr v Varghese Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Pragathi Concretes and Construction Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Smt Keerthana B Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Girias Investment (P) Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Perfint Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Vs California Institute of Computer Assisted Surgery