Sri P a Prabhakaran v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Feb 2026WP/4563/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TDR certificate; Transferable Development Rights; land acquisition without compensation; representation dated 06.08.2024 Annexure-D not considered; mandamus to consider representation within 60 days; reasoned order requirement; Deputy Commissioner TDR and LAQ; Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA); Urban Development Department; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; LB-RES; Byrathi Village Bidrehalli Hobli Bengaluru South Taluk; Site No.220; Karnataka High Court 2026; Suraj Govindaraj J.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; mandamus issued to respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure-D) and pass necessary orders within 60 days from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶¶42

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.3 is required to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure-D) seeking issuance of a Transferable Development Rights Certificate and pass orders thereon.

¶¶31

Court's answer

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

¶¶39

Ratio / Principle

Any order passed on such a representation would have to be accompanied by reasons; neither consideration nor a reasoned order having been done, and the representation having been kept pending, the court proceeded to issue directions.

¶¶40

Key takeaways

A mandamus was issued directing respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 06.08.2024 at Annexure-D and pass necessary orders within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Suraj Govindaraj J.), Writ Petition No.4563 of 2026 (LB-RES), decided 18 February 2026. Petitioner, through his GPA holder, sought a direction to respondent No.3 (Deputy Commissioner TDR and LAQ, Greater Bengaluru Authority) to consider his representation dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure-D) and issue a Transferable Development Rights Certificate in respect of Site No.220, Byrathi Village, Bidrehalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 5,827.5 sq.ft. Grievance: the petitioner's land stood acquired, but neither compensation had been paid nor a TDR certificate issued, and the representation had gone unconsidered. Held that whenever a representation is submitted by a citizen to an authority, it must be considered and orders passed within a reasonable time, either accepting or rejecting the request, and any such order must be accompanied by reasons. Petition disposed of with a mandamus to respondent No.3 to consider the representation and pass necessary orders within 60 days of receipt of a copy of the order. Filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:10069 WP No. 4563 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.4563 OF 2026 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI P.A. PRABHAKARAN S/O PULLAT APPU, AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS, R/O. G 018, HABITAT SPLENDOUR, AECS LAYOUT, KUNDALAHALLI, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 037 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER, SRI SANTOSH PRABHAKARAN, S/O P.A. PRABHAKARAN.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:10069 WP No. 4563 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TDR AND LAQ, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. BOPPANNA BELLIYAPPA, AGA FOR R.1; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 AND R.3.)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.08.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ISSUE TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING SITE NO.220, KATHA NO.128A, PROPERTY NO.153, SITUATED AT BYRATHI VILLAGE, BIDREHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK MEASURING EAST TO WEST:65+55/2 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH:64+62/2 FEET, TOTALLY MEASURING 5,827.5 SQ. FEET EXPEDITIOUSLY, ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:10069 WP No. 4563 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

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

¶30

Petitioner is before this court seeking the following reliefs:

¶31

" (a) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus or Order or Direction in the similar nature directing the 3^rd respondent authorities to consider the representation dated 06.08.2024 vide Annexure-D and issue Transferable Development Rights Certificate in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property bearing site No.220, Katha No.128A, Property No.153, situated at Byrathi Village, Bidrehalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring East to West:65+55/2 Feet and North to South:64+62/2 Feet, totally measuring 5,827.5 Sq.Feet expeditiously;

¶32

(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.”

¶33

The grievance of the petitioner is that though the land of the petitioner has been acquired, neither compensation has been paid nor Transferable Development Rights Certificate has been issued to the petitioner. In that background, the representation having been submitted by

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:10069 WP No. 4563 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

the petitioner on 06.08.2024 at Annexure-D, the same

¶38

has also not been considered by the respondents.

¶39

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.

¶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 disposed of.

¶43

ii) A mandamus is issued directing respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 06.08.2024 at Annexure-D, 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

hkh.

¶46

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23

Sri P a Prabhakaran v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P a Prabhakaran 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

Sri. a.P.Govindappa, Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Radhakrishna Rai Vs State of Karnataka

Shree Parvathamma Narasimhaiah Charitable Trust (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri B G Venkatesh Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Charvi C. Reddy Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mansoorulla Khan Vs the Commissioner