C G Mylarappa Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

C G Mylarappa Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the approval of the commercial single site and its plan (Annexures-C and C1) granted by respondent No.2 to respondent No.5 is liable to be quashed on the petitioner's objection that no road was left for access to the petitioner's land situated behind respondent No.5's land. +1 more

Court's answer

What respondent No.5 obtained is not a layout plan but only a single unit plan for development of a commercial complex; such a single unit plan does not require any road to be shown or left within the said property to give access to the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

There is no requirement for respondent No.5 to make available any access in his land to the land of the petitioner; hence the petitioner cannot object to the plan, which has been sanctioned in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner has no access and claims easementary rights or otherwise, it is for the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings seeking such an access.ratio¶¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP No. 4909 of 2026 (LB-RES) | High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru | Suraj Govindaraj, J. | Oral order dated 25-02-2026 | DISMISSED. Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by three co-owners (C G Mylarappa, Smt G Nagaratnamma and C G Prabhakar, children of Gutteppa) of Survey No.83/10 (20 guntas), Chitradurga, challenging the approval of a commercial single site and its plan No. CHI. NA. PRA/NA.YO/E-27322/VAA,E/NI.A/2025-2026/276 dated 24.07.2025 (Annexures-C, C1) granted by respondent No.2, the Commissioner, Urban Development Authority, to respondent No.5 (G N Prakash Reddy), owner of converted Survey No.140/1B (2 acres 20 guntas); grievance: no road left for access to the petitioners' land lying behind respondent No.5's land, and representations dated 20.12.2025 and 28.01.2026 not considered. Held (ratio): (i) the sanction was a single unit plan for a commercial complex, not a layout plan, and such a plan does not require any road to be shown or left within the property for the petitioner's access; (ii) as respondent No.5 is under no requirement to provide access from his land, the petitioner cannot object to a plan sanctioned in accordance with law; (iii) any easementary/access claim must be pursued in appropriate separate proceedings. Petition dismissed; notice to respondent No.5 dispensed with. No precedent discussed; quantum nil.

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:11933 WP No. 4909 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 4909 OF 2026 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

C G MYLARAPPA S/O GUTTEPPA RETD POLICE OFFICER. AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

SMT G NAGARATNAMMA D/O GUTTEPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

C G PRABHAKAR S/O GUTTEPPA

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

Digitally signed by VARSHA N RASALKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

ALL ARE R/AT 4^TH CROSS, HAGALU AREA, JOGIMATTI ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN 577501

(BY SRI. M.R.HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)

…PETITIONERS

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VIDHANA SOUDA BENGALURU-560001

THE COMMISSIONER URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11933 WP No. 4909 of 2026

HC-KAR

CHITRADURGA-577501

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPT.OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING. NO-47, 1^ST FLOOR, JCR EXTENSION, 1^ST CROSS, CHITRADURGA. 577501

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MADAKARI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MADAKARI PURA CHITRADURGA- 577 50.1

G N PRAKASH REDDY S/O NARASIMHAREDDY, AGE-NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/AT TEACHERS COLONY, IUDP LAYOUT, CHITRADURGA-577501.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.AKASH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 SRI. N.PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 SMT.SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 V/O/DT:25.02.2026, NOTICE TO R5 DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL SINGLE SITE AND ITS PLAN BEARING NO. CHI. NA. PRA/NA.YO/E-27322/VAA,E/NI.A/2025-2026/276 DATED 24.07.2025 PRODUCED AT ANNX-C AND C1 APPROVED BY THE R2 CONSEQUENTLY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 20.12.2025 PRODUCED AT ANNX-D AND ANOTHER REPRESENTATION DATED 28.01.2026 PRODUCED AT ANNX-J.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11933 WP No. 4909 of 2026

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent No.1. Sri Akash Kumar Gowda, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.2 and Sri No.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.4.

Notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed.

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

"WHEREFORE, The petitioner prays that the this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue Writ of certiorari by quashing the approval of commercial single site and its plan bearing No.Chi.Na.Pra/Na.Yo/E-27322/Vaa,e/Ni.A/ 20252026/276 dated 24.07.2025 produced at ANNEXURE - C AND C1, approved by the respondent No.2, consequently kindly be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus by directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.12.2025 produced at ANNEXURE-D and another representation dated 28.01.2026 produced at ANNEXURE-J also prayed for issue any other direction which the court may think fit in the interest of justice and equity."

The petitioner claims to be owner of the land in Survey

No.83/10 measuring 20 guntas situated at Chitradurga town. Respondent No.5, being the owner of the land in

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11933 WP No. 4909 of 2026

HC-KAR

Survey No.140/1B measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, has got the same converted and thereafter applied to respondent No.2 for a single site plan for commercial building. The same having been granted, the petitioner has submitted an objection stating that while obtaining such a plan, no road has been left for access to the petitioner, whose land is situated behind the land of respondent No.5. The said, representation not having been considered, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid relief.

A perusal of Annexure-C1 being the plan relating to respondent No.5 indicates that the land of the petitioner is abutting the National Highway and respondent No.5 has obtained a single unit development plan for commercial complex.

What is pertinent to observe is that it is not a layout plan which has been obtained, but only a single unit plan for development of commercial complex. Such a single unit plan does not require any road to be shown or left within the said property to give access to the petitioner. If at all the petitioner has no access and claims easementary

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:11933 WP No. 4909 of 2026

HC-KAR

rights or otherwise, it is for the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings seeking such an access. The petitioner cannot object to a plan, which has been sanctioned in accordance with law, more so when there is no requirement for respondent No.5 to make available any access in his land to the land of the petitioner.

With the above observations, petition stands dismissed.

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

VM

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6