Mr. Manju Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION, DELETING THE ROAD IN CDP RMP 2015 SCHEDULE KUNDALAHALLI SY NO 110 THE ROAD WHICH IS PREVAILING IN CDP RMP 2015 (MUTATION CORRIDOR) AS THE PROPOSED ROAD IN RMP 2015 IS DROPPED IN THE PROPOSED CDP RMP 2031. (ANNEXURE "A" AND "A1") IN SO FAR AS THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

¶31

following reliefs:

¶32

"a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, deleting the road in CDP RMP 2015 Schedule Kundalahalli Sy.No.110 the road which

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10453 WP No. 5274 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

is prevailing in CDP RMP 2015 (Mutation Corridor) as the proposed road in RMP 2015 is dropped in the proposed CDP RMP 2031 (Annexure "A" and "A1") in so far as the petition schedule property is concerned.

¶36

b. Issue a writ of Cewrtiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, quashing the endorsement dated 01.09.2025 passed by the respondent no 4 stating that the application for plan sanction is to be modified as there is an road widening proposal for 30.00 Mtrs as per RMP 2015 has highly arbitrary and illegal. (Annexure -"B")

¶37

c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to drop the proposal of formation of alleged road over the Petitioner schedule property as per RMP 2015. (Annexure -"A")

¶38

d. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondent 2 to 5 to regularize and issue Plan Sanction in favour of the petitioners with respect to the petition schedule properties in pursuant to the Petitioners application submitted on 09.07.2025 accepted on 01.09.2025 by Respondent No 4. (Annexure -"C")

¶39

e. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing respondent no 2 to 5 to consider petitioner representation dated 10.09.2025, 19.12.2025 and application. dated 11.09.2025 in accordance to law. (Annexure- R to R2).

¶40

f. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondent 2 to 5 in issuing the endorsement dated 01.09.2025 stating that the application for plan sanction is to be modified as there is an road widening proposal for 30.00 Mtrs as per RMP 2015 is highly arbitrary illegal and opposed to law. (Annexure -"B")

¶41

g. Grant such other relief as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of this case."

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:10453 WP No. 5274 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The petitioners claim to be the owners of the property in Sy.No.110 of Kundalahalli, on which the petitioners had put up a construction without obtaining a plan sanction. The writ petition having been filed before this Court, this Court had permitted the petitioners to avail the benefit of Section 240 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020, to submit a plan for sanction in accordance with the building bylaws to try and save the property, so long as it complied with the applicable building bylaws. The Petitioner has made an application for plan sanction. The same came to be rejected by the endorsement at Annexure-B on the ground that there is a proposed 30 Mtrs. RMP road shown in the Revised Master Plan 2015 (RMP 2015) and as such, the plan cannot be sanctioned. It is challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:10453 WP No. 5274 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

The submission of Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel

¶50

for the petitioners, is that the 30-meter-wide road shown in RMP 2015 has been deleted in the proposed RMP 2031, and on that ground, since the planning Authority has also decided that in the future the road is to be deleted, there cannot be an embargo imposed on the development of the property today.

¶51

Secondly, he submits that the GBA, which is the Administrative Authority in respect to the said property, also does not wish to form any road. Hence, the question of the presence of a proposed road in RMP 2015 ought not to be a reason not to grant plan sanction by the respondents.

¶52

Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5, on instructions, submits that the BBMP/GBA does not wish to form any road in the said property as per the endorsement dated

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:10453 WP No. 5274 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

16.08.2025 produced at Annexure-Q2 along with the writ petition.

¶57

The submission of Sri.K. Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.6 is that the entire area has been handed over to the GBA and now the GBA is the planning Authority. It is for GBA to take a decision in relation thereto.

¶58

Heard Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Sri K. Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.6. Perused papers.

¶59

This case raises a simple but important question. Can a landowner be prevented from using his land only because a road is shown in the Revised Master Plan (RMP), when the Municipal Authority itself has clearly stated that it does not intend to form that road?

¶60

It is not disputed that in RMP 2015 a 30-metre-wide road is shown on the Petitioner’s property. It is also

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:10453 WP No. 5274 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

true that in the later proposed RMP 2031 this road was deleted. However, since RMP 2031 was never brought into force and has been cancelled, the matter must be examined only with reference to RMP 2015, which continues to be in force.

¶65

The mere showing of a proposed road in a Master Plan does not mean that the land automatically becomes the property of the Planning Authority or the Municipal Corporation. It does not transfer ownership. It does not take away possession. It does not amount to an acquisition. The land continues to belong to the owner unless and until it is acquired in accordance with law.

¶66

Under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, a reservation in the Master Plan only gives power to the Authority to acquire the land if it wishes to implement the proposal. It does not by itself amount to acquisition. There is a clear difference

¶67

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:10453 WP No. 5274 of 2026

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

between “reservation” and “acquisition.” Reservation is only an intention or proposal. Acquisition is the legal process by which the owner is divested of his property, and compensation is paid.

¶70

In the present case, the endorsement at AnnexureQ2 clearly shows that the BBMP does not intend to form the 30-metre-wide road on the Petitioner’s land. No acquisition proceedings have been initiated. No steps have been taken to implement the road. The Authority has, therefore, chosen not to act on the proposal.

¶71

If, in spite of this, the Petitioner is denied sanction of his building plan only because the road continues to be shown in RMP 2015, the result would be unfair. The land would remain in the Petitioner’s name. No compensation would be paid. No acquisition would take place. Yet, he would not be allowed to use or

¶72

9 -

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:10453 WP No. 5274 of 2026

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

develop his own property. Such a situation cannot be permitted in law.

¶76

The Constitution under Article 300A protects the right to property. A person can be deprived of property only by the authority of law. A mere proposal in a Master Plan, especially when the Authority itself does not want to implement it, cannot be treated as a valid ground to indefinitely restrict the owner’s rights.

¶77

Planning laws are meant to regulate development in an orderly manner. They are not meant to freeze private land forever without acquisition. Once the Authority has stated that it does not wish to form the road, it cannot rely on that very proposal to reject the Petitioner’s application.

¶78

For these reasons, the rejection of the Petitioner’s building plan solely on the ground of the proposed 30-metre-wide road in RMP 2015 cannot be

¶79

10 -

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:10453 WP No. 5274 of 2026

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

sustained. The endorsement is therefore required to be quashed and Respondent–BBMP is required to be directed to reconsider the Petitioner’s application for building plan sanction without reference to the proposed 30-metre-wide road, and in accordance with the applicable building rules and regulations.

¶83

It is made clear that if, in future, the Authorities decide to implement any valid development proposal, they are at liberty to initiate acquisition proceedings in accordance with law, as regards which the Petitioner would not be entitled to claim any equities on account of the construction put up. Hence, I pass the following:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶86

ii) A certiorari is issued, the endorsement dated 01.09.2025 at Annexure-B is quashed.

¶87

iii) The respondent No.4 is directed to consider the application for plan sanction submitted by the

¶88

11 -

¶89

NC: 2026:KHC:10453 WP No. 5274 of 2026

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

petitioners as per the observation made herein above and consider the same in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶92

iv) Needless to say, until the application is considered, respondents are restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners.

¶93

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶94

KTY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 49

Mr. Manju Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Manju Reddy 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

Shri B G Venkatesh Vs the Commissioner

Sri P a Prabhakaran Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Charvi C. Reddy Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

M/S Mohan & Co. Vs the Commissioner

M/S Kare Electronics and Development Private Limited Vs the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

P Chandrashekar Vs the Chief Commissioner