Allowed¶42

Smt a P Vilasalathika v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2026WP/4460/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificate; Section 14(B) Town and Country Planning Act 1961; Greater Bengalurua Authority (GBA); Deputy Commissioner TDR and LAQ; mandamus to consider representation dated 01.08.2024 (Annexure-C); duty of authority to decide citizen representations within reasonable time; reasoned order requirement; 60-day timeline; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; land acquisition TDR Bengaluru; Kothanur Village Sy.No.51/2 K.R. Puram Hobli Bengaluru East Taluk; 0.11 guntas; WP No. 4460 of 2026 (LB-BMP); Karnataka High Court; Justice Suraj Govindaraj; 12.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 01.08.2024 at Annexure-C and pass necessary orders within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Smt a P Vilasalathika Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are required to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.08.2024 (Annexure-C) seeking issuance of a Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificate and to pass orders thereon within a reasonable period of time.

¶36

Court's answer

Whenever any representation is submitted by a citizen to an authority, the authority is required to consider the same and pass orders within a reasonable period of time, either accepting or rejecting the request made.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Any order passed in response to such a representation must be accompanied by reasons; neither consideration nor reasons having been forthcoming, with the representation kept pending, the Court issued a mandamus to consider the representation and pass the necessary orders within 60 days.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Suraj Govindaraj J.), WP No. 4460 of 2026 (LB-BMP), decided 12.02.2026: Petitioner, whose agricultural land bearing Sy.No.51/2, Kothanur Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk (0.11 guntas) had been acquired, came forward to accept Transferable Development Rights in terms of Section 14(B) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, but the Greater Bengalurua Authority respondents did not issue the TDR certificates, nor consider her representation dated 01.08.2024 (Annexure-C). Held: whenever a representation is submitted by a citizen to an authority, it must be considered and orders passed within a reasonable period of time, either accepting or rejecting the request, and any such order must be accompanied by reasons. Writ petition allowed; mandamus issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 (Greater Bengalurua Authority and Deputy Commissioner TDR and LAQ) to consider the representation dated 01.08.2024 and pass necessary orders within 60 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:9090 WP No. 4460 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4460 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT A.P. VILASALATHIKA W/O LATE SRI. SHANKARAN KUTTY.P.P., AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O SY. NO. 51/2, AVAITHA NILAYAM, HENNUR KOTHANUR ROAD, GOKULAM ENCLAVE, KOTHANUR VILLAGE, DR. SHIVARAMAKARANTHA NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 077.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶16

THE GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY (GBA), NR SQUARE, BANGALORE 560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TDR AND LAQ,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:9090 WP No. 4460 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

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

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 AND 3 AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.08.2024 VIDE ANNX-C AND ISSUE TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING SY. NO. 51/2 SITUATED AT KOTHANUR VILLAGE K R PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 0.11 GUNTAS EXPEDITIOUSLY.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1 and Sri. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶28

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶29

(a) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or order or direction in the similar nature directing the 2^nd and 3^rd

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:9090 WP No. 4460 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

respondent authorities to consider the representation dated 01.08.2024 vide Annexure-C and issue transferable development rights certificate in favour of the petitioner in respect of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.51/2 situated at Kothanur Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, measuring to an extent of 0.11 guntas expeditiously.

¶33

(b) Grant any such other relief or relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶34

The grievance of the petitioner is that though the land of the petitioner had been acquired and the petitioner had come forward to accept Transferable Development Rights like a TDR in terms of Section 14 (B) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, the respondents have not issued the said TDR certificates.

¶35

In that background, the representation having been submitted by the petitioner on 01.08.2024 at AnnexureC, the same has also not been considered by the respondents.

¶36

Whenever, any representation is submitted by a citizen to authority, it is required for the authority to consider the same and pass orders within a reasonable period of time either accepting or rejecting the request made.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:9090 WP No. 4460 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Needless to say, any order passed would have to be accompanied by reasons. Neither having been done and the representation having been kept pending, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) Writ petition is allowed .

¶43

ii) A mandamus is issued directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 01.08.2024 at Annexure-C, and pass necessary orders within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶45

GJM

¶46

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10

Smt a P Vilasalathika v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt a P Vilasalathika v. 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

Giriraja M R Vs Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sri. Kikkeri Krishnamurthy Vs the Commissioner

Smt. G Nitya Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mrs.Ashwini v Vs the Commissioner

Sri.Srinivasa, Vs the Chief Commissioner and Appellate Tribunal

National Centre for Biological Sciences (Ncbs) Vs the Commissioner