M/S Dhruvija Nisarga v. The State of Karnataka

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:43192( WP(No.(22304(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010492832026( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

TH DATED(THIS(THE(13 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(R.(NATARAJ(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(22304(OF(2026((BDA)(

BETWEEN:(( (

1., M/S.,DHRUVIJA,NISARGA, PARTNERSHIP,FIRM,HAVING,ITS,OFFICE,AT,, TH NO.50,,SAROJA,CHAMBERS,,4 ,MAIN,ROAD,, NEHRUNAGAR,,BENGALURU-560020,,

REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,PARTNER, SRI.,M.R.,NARASIMHAMURTHY, S/O,M.C.,RAMA,RAO, ,

2., SMT.,SHASHIKALA,N, AGED,ABOUT,69,YEARS,,, W/O.,SRI.,T.,KRISHNAMURTHY,,, THRESIDING,AT,NO.58/40,,40 ,CROSS,, TH 8 ,BLOCK,,JAYANAGAR,,, BENGALURU,-560,082, REPRESENTED,BY,HER,POWER,OF,ATTORNEY,HOLDER, M/S.,MANDAKINI,CONSTRUCTIONS,PRIVATE,LIMITED, Digitally A,COMPANY,INCORPORATED,UNDER,COMPANIES,ACT,, signedtiby REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,DIRECTOR,,HEMALATHA0J SRI.,M.R.,NARASIMHAMURTHY,Location: HIGH0COURT …PETITIONERS, OF KARNATAKA (BY,SRI.,G.,SRIDHAR,,ADVOCATE), AND:( (

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,, DEPARTMENT,OF,URBAN,DEVELOPMENT,,, TH4 ,FLOOR,,VIKAS,SOUDHA,,, DR.,AMBEDKAR,VEEDHI,,, BANGALORE-560001, , ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:43192( WP(No.(22304(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010492832026( ( (

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

3., THE,TOWN,PLANNING,MEMBER,, THE,BANGALORE,DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY,, T.,CHOWDAIAH,ROAD,,, KUMARAPARK,WEST,,, BANGALORE-560020, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SMT.,POOJA,M.,KOORSE,,HIGH,COURT,GOVERNMENT,PLEADER, FOR,RESPONDENT,NO.1;, SRI.,B.S.SACHIN,,ADVOCATE,FOR,RESPONDENT,NOS.2,AND,3), THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,DIRECT,THE,RESPONDENTS, NDNOS.1, TO, 3, HEREIN, TO, APPROVE, THE, PLAN, FILED, BY, THE, 2 ,, PETITIONER,VIDE,APPLICATION,DATED,16.04.2026,AT,ANNEXURE-A,, AND,ISSUE,THE,APPROVAL,SOUGHT,FOR,THEREIN,WITHIN,2,WEEKS, OR, IN, THE, ALTERNATIVE, DIRECT, THE, RESPONDENTS, NOS.1, TO, 3, HEREIN,TO,CONSIDER,ON,THE,APPLICATION,DATED,16.04.2026,AT, ANNEXURE-A,AND,PASS,NECESSARY,ORDERS,IN,A,TIMELY,MANNER., , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING,IN, 'B',GROUP,,THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,R.,NATARAJ, , ORAL(ORDER( The, petitioners, have, sought, for, a, writ, in, the, nature, of, mandamus,to,direct,respondent,Nos.1,to,3,to,approve,the,plan,

submitted by petitioner No.2 vide application dated

16.04.2026. Alternatively, they have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the application of petitioner No.2 dated 16.04.2026 and pass appropriate orders.

2.

(i) The petitioners contend that petitioner No.1 filed an application for approval of layout plan dated

12.09.2025 before respondent Nos.2 and 3 which was not approved for nearly three months. Being aggrieved by the same, they approached this Court in W.P. No.38801/2025. This Court vide order dated 19.01.2026 allowed the said petition and directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders. However, the said order was not complied. In the meanwhile, the petitioners filed another application dated 16.04.2026 for approval of modified layout plan. The petitioners contend that even after expiry of 90 days, the respondents have not considered the application. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to approve the layout plan by considering their application dated

16.04.2026.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated above contentions and submitted that the delay in sanctioning the layout plan is affecting the project and the petitioners are suffering loss every day. Therefore, he prays that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioner No.2 at the earliest.

¶4The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the application filed by the petitioners for approval of the layout plan would be considered in accordance with law within a period of three months.

¶5I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶6Under Section 15 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 the respondent No.3 is bound to communicate its decision to the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of the acknowledgment of an application for sanction of development plan, failing which, the plan so submitted is deemed to have been granted. This is

however subject to the plan being in conformity with the land use prescribed in the master plan. Therefore, the respondents are bound to act with caution and with alacrity to ensure that such requests for sanction of development plan is considered at the earliest.

¶7In the instant case, though the petitioner No.2 filed an application on 16.04.2026, the respondents have not considered the same within the time as prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. Therefore, it is appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioner No.2 within a period of one month from today, if not already considered, failing which, it shall be deemed to be approved.

¶8In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The respondent No.3 is directed to consider the application dated 16.04.2026 submitted by the petitioner No.2 within a period of one month from today, failing which, the plan submitted by the petitioners No.2 shall be deemed to be approved under Section 15(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. In such event, the petitioners shall

be at liberty to proceed with formation of the layout as per the plan, but in accordance with law.

Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60