Karnataka High Court
Mr. M.N. Priyadatta vs State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.1194 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. MR. M.N.PRIYADATTA
S/O LATE MR. M.NARAYANA DAS,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
2. MRS. SUJATHA
W/O. MR. M.N.PRIYADATTA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
3. MRS. M.P.PRIYANKA
D/O MR. M.N.PRIYADATTA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
4. MR. M.P.PRAKRUTH
S/O MR. M.N.PRIYADATTA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.6/67, 47TH CROSS,
8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 082.
...APPELLANTS
(BY MS. SRUTI C. CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
2. KANAKAPURA PLANNING
AUTHORITY
KANAKAPURA
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117.
3. THE MEMBER
SECRETARY AND JOINT DIRECTOR
CITY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
KANAKAPURA PLANNING AUTHORITY
KANAKAPURA
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
KANAKAPURA PLANNING
AUTHORITY
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117.
5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
KANAKAPURA PLANNING
AUTHORITY,
KANAKAPURA
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PARAS JAIN FOR C/RESPONDENT)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
3
ORDER DATED 10.08.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P.NO.7614/2020 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 17.06.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, DR. K.MANMADHA RAO, J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO) This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.08.2023, passed in Writ Petition No.7614/2020(LB-RES).
2. The appellants herein are the petitioners and the respondents herein are the respondents in W.P.No.7614/2020 before the learned Single Judge. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge reads thus:
3. The appellants sought for the following reliefs before the learned Single Judge:-
a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the Order/Endorsement bearing No. Ka Yoo Pra/Bhu Uu Ba/4/5/6/2017-18/1940 dated 11.03.2020 issued by Respondent No.2., viz Annexure-R 4 b. Issue a writ in nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to Respondent No.2 to 5 to accord permission to the petitioners for change of land use of the Petition Schedule properties from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purpose (yellow zone) as sought for, in the Applications dated 02.01.2018 as at Annexure A, A1, A2 and pursuant to the paper publication dated 08.02.2018 as at Annexure C & C1 c. Grant such other writ, order or direction including cost as deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.
d. To declare that the property described in the schedule to the writ petition for which permission for change of land use is submitted is within the large extent of Kanakapura Local planning area and therefore the petitioner is entitled for permission for change of land use for residential purpose (yellow zone).
4. The impugned order passed by the learned single Judge reads as under:
Thus, looked at from any angle, I do not find any infirmity in the order of rejection passed by respondent No.2 which is impugned in this proceedings. As such, the petition stands dismissed. Pending IA stands dismissed.5
The facts of the case are as under:
5. The appellants are the absolute owners of various lands measuring 18 Acres 21 Guntas in Gabbadi Village & Grama, Harohalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, having acquired them under registered sale deeds in the years 2006 and 2007. The revenue records and title documents stand in the name of the appellants, giving rise to an irrebuttable presumption of ownership and lawful possession over the schedule properties.
6. The appellants filed applications dated 02.01.2018, respondent No.2 seeking change of land use from agricultural to residential purpose, supported by all relevant documents including title deeds, revenue extracts, Google map, and development sketches. Upon scrutiny and spot inspection, the authorities concluded that the adjoining areas within a 500-meter radius had undergone significant development, justifying a change in land use. No objections were raised by departments including the Kaggalahalli Grama Panchayath, which issued a No Objection certificate dated 27.08.2018. The respondent No.2 then required public notice through newspaper publication, for which the appellants deposited Rs.50,000/- on 05.02.2018. Publications were effected on 08.02.2018 and notably, no objections were 6 received from the general public, but the respondents failed to process the application. Aggrieved by the same the appellants instituted W.Ps.No.554-556/2019 and W.Ps.No.968-977/2019, wherein this Court, by its order dated 27.02.2019, directed the respondents to consider the applications filed by the appellants' within four weeks. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 and 3 sought additional documents, which were furnished vide letter dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure E), including further sketches, survey reports, NOC of the Gram Panchayath, and evidence of similar permissions granted in adjacent areas. Additionally, a report from the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) dated 02.05.2019 (Annexure F) was placed on record.
7. Respondent No.2, ignoring the comprehensive compliance by the appellants, issued an Endorsement dated 30.05.2019, rejecting the application on the ground that the land was agricultural land, located 1.5 km from the development boundary, with undulating terrain and lacking a public access road. Hence, it would be difficult for respondent No.2 to provide any civic amenities, there is no public road situated near the property for access as also that there were quarries which situate around property wherein blasting activities were carried out. The 7 endorsement dated 30.05.2019 was challenged in W.Ps.No.25530-25532/2019, W.Ps.No.25866-25878/2019, and W.P.No.25879/2019. The Court vide order dated 05.11.2019, set aside the endorsement and remitted to respondents No.3 to 5 for fresh consideration after obtaining a report from the jurisdictional Tahsildar as to the existence adequate access to an arterial road or public road which constituted an exception to the public road requirement and found that the rejection violated the principles of natural justice and was an error apparent on the face of the record.
8. The matter was once again reconsidered by the authorities, a mahazar was conducted on 12.12.2019, and the sketch was drawn wherein the road was indicated and information was sought for from the Tahsildar to find out if any quarrying activities were in operation. Furthermore, upon a specific request regarding quarrying activity, the Tahsildar confirmed by his report dated 15.02.2020 that no such activity was ongoing in or near Gabbadi Village. However, respondent No.2 issued an endorsement refusing the appellants request for change of land use, citing the unavailability of civic amenities such as water pipelines, sanitary pipelines, and electric lines in the vicinity, 8 thereby making it unfeasible to provide such services to the appellants' property. Additionally, it was stated that there are operational quarries nearby where explosives are used, and a portion of the schedule property lies within 200 meters of the said quarries, thus falling within the designated safer zone. Consequently, change of land use was denied.
9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the respondents.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the reasons assigned by respondent No.2 are untenable, as the appellants have merely sought a change of land use, which ought to have been granted upon application. With respect to the safer zone objection, it was submitted that pursuant to the amendment dated 17.03.2023 to Rule 6(ii) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1994, ('the KMMC Rules' for short) the safe distance has been revised from 200 meters to 100 meters, thereby rendering the earlier objection unsustainable. Insofar as the availability of civic amenities is concerned, it was argued that such services are to be provided by the Authorities upon sanction of development after change of land 9 use, especially when the concerned Panchayat has raised no objection. Accordingly, it was urged that the endorsement issued by respondent No.2 be quashed and the change of land use be permitted in respect of the appellants' property.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that despite the availability of material including the Tahsildar's report dated 18.12.2019 confirming road access and the ADLR's report dated 01.07.2023 showing safe distance from quarry operations, the respondents did not engage in an objective evaluation. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that these reports met the criteria stipulated in Government Order No.UDD/165/BMR/2012 dated 12.10.2012 under the fourth proviso to Section 14-A(1) of the KTCP Act. Having accepted that Rule 6(ii) of the KMMC Rules was inapplicable, the learned Single Judge nevertheless erred in calling upon the appellants to file affidavits regarding disclosure of safety risks to potential purchasers and disinterest in civic amenities, and in drawing adverse inferences from the failure to file such affidavits--despite no such requirement being grounded in law.
10
12. The learned counsel further contended that the learned Single Judge also failed to consider that the Kaggalahalli Gram Panchayat had, vide its NOC dated 27.08.2018, certified its willingness to provide basic infrastructure if land use conversion was sanctioned. BESCOM electricity supply exists, and five functioning borewells provide water to the appellants' lands. Further, the learned Single Judge erred in observing that the Master Plan indicated the area as reserved for 0% development. As a matter of fact, the Master Plan of the Harohalli Local Planning Area shows that 0% is reserved for agricultural use and that the area, including Gabbadi Village, falls within the conurbation area, thus rebutting the respondents' malafide contention that the lands fall outside such limits.
13. It is further contended that Section 14A of the KTCP Act empowers respondent No.1, and not the Planning Authority, to grant change of land use even if the Master Plan zones the land as agricultural. There is no statutory bar on change of land use merely because of zoning in the Master Plan. The learned Single Judge erred in effectively assuming the role of the statutory authority and deciding the applications de facto, thereby depriving the appellants of their legitimate remedy. The failure to examine 11 whether the authority exercised its statutory power lawfully amounts to jurisdictional error, warranting interference under Article 226.
14. Section 14A of the KTCP Act reads as under:-
14A Change of land use from the Master Plan.- (1) At any time after the date on which the Master Plan for an area comes into operation, the Planning Authority may, with the previous approval of the State Government, allow such changes in the land use or development from the Master plan as may be necessitated by topographical cartographical the details in the plan or changes arising out of the implementation of the proposals in outline development plan of the circumstances prevailing at any particular time, by the enforcement of the plan:
Provided that, -
(a) all changes are in public interest;
(b) the changes proposed do not contravene any of the provisions of this Act or any other law governing planning, development or use of land within the local planning area; and
(c) the proposal for all such changes are published in one or more daily newspapers, having circulation in the area, inviting objections from the public within a period of not less than fifteen days from the date of 12 publication as may be specified by the Planning Authority.
2) The provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) of section 14 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the change in land use or development from the Master plan.
15. It is further contended that in the rejoinder also it is stated that there is no blasting activities in the said quarries since the said quarries are only being used for quarrying building stone and manufacture of M-sand which do not require blasting activities and he submits that the affidavit filed by the Geologist in this regard is false and no explosive activities are conducted and on that basis, he submits that false affidavit has been filed.
16. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the right to seek change of land use under Section 14A of the KTCP Act is not an absolute or unfettered right.
He contended that such change is ordinarily limited to rectifying any cartological or topographical errors in the development plan prepared by respondent No.2. In the present case, the appellant is not seeking a rectification of any such errors but is instead seeking a reclassification of land from an agricultural zone to a 13 residential zone, which is not permissible under the existing development plan.
17. The learned counsel for respondents further argued that in public interest and considering the potential damage to future residential constructions and the adverse environmental impacts, the authorities have rightly rejected the appellants' application. He pointed out that quarrying operations involving the use of explosives are admittedly ongoing in the vicinity, and the resultant safety and environmental risks are significant factors that warrant the rejection of the land use change. He also emphasized that the area in question is designated for agricultural purposes in the master plan, and allowing a small portion of land to be re-designated as residential would disrupt the comprehensive and planned development of the region. Such piecemeal reclassification, he argued, would lead to long-term developmental issues and adversely affect the growth strategy envisioned for the area.
18. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following judgments:- 14
• Vinayak House Building Cooperative Society Limited v. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2021) 14 SCC 409;
41. It is no doubt true that right to build on one's own land is a right incidental to the ownership of the land. This right has been regulated in the interest of the community residing within the limits of the city in general and the layout in particular. This has to be strictly implemented for the planned development of the city. If it is not controlled, it will have tremendous burden on the infrastructure available in the layout.
42. We are of the view that Section 14-A of the Planning Act, which empowers the Planning Authority to grant permission for change of land use or development, has no application to the lands acquired under Sections 17 to 19 of the BDA Act for the implementation of the scheme or the layout approved under Section 32 of the said Act. The position is similar even in respect of the other Development Authorities in the State of Karnataka.
43. We make it clear that henceforth, the planning/development authorities in the State of Karnataka, including BDA shall not permit change of land use within the layout formed by BDA or a private layout formed under Section 32 of the BDA Act or the layout formed by any other authority contrary to the scheme sanctioned by the State Government or the layout plan approved by the competent authority. BDA or the other planning/development authorities shall not venture to alter the sanctioned scheme/approved layout plan in any manner. BDA and the other planning/development authorities, Bruhat Bangalore 15 City Municipal Corporation, Bangalore, or any other authorities in the State of Karnataka authorised to sanction the plan for construction of the buildings shall not sanction any plan for construction contrary to the sanctioned scheme/approved layout plan. The sites reserved for parks, playgrounds or for providing other amenities shall be used strictly for the purpose for which they were reserved. Be it noted that violation of any of these directions by the authorities will be viewed strictly.
• S.N. Chandrashekar and another v. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2006) 3 SCC
208.
20. Section 14(1), as it then stood, of the Act provided that every change in land use and every development in the area covered by the plan subject to Section 14-A shall conform to the provisions of the Act. Section 14(2), however, provides that no such change in land use or development shall be made except with the written permission of the Planning Authority which shall be contained in a commencement certificate in the form prescribed. Section 15 provides for the procedure required to be followed where the Planning Authority is required to pass an order in terms of Section 14 of the Act. So far as changes of land use or development from the Outline Development Plan is concerned, the same would be subject to the procedure laid down in Section 14-A of the Act. Outline Development Plan being a one-time plan, evidently sub-section (2) of Section 14 had no application. It is only for that purpose Section 14-A had to be introduced. Section 14-A categorically states 16 that change in the land use or development from the Outline Development Plan must be necessitated by: (i) topographical or cartographical or other errors and omissions; (ii) due to failure to fully indicate the details in the plan or changes arising out of the implementation of the proposals in Outline Development Plan; and (iii) circumstances prevailing at any particular time by the enforcement of the plan.
21. XXXX
22. XXXX
23. The Zoning Regulations provide for uses of land that are permitted and may be permitted under special circumstances by the Authority in the local planning area of Bangalore. Thus, even for the purpose of invoking clause (b) of the Regulations affecting residential zone it must be referable to the special circumstances which were obtaining. We may, at this stage, take note of Explanation appended to Section
15. In terms of the said Explanation, the power to grant necessary permission under Section 15 for a change of user of land would include the power to grant permission for retention on land of any building or work constructed or carried out thereon before the date of the publication of the declaration of intention to prepare an Outline Development Plan under sub- section (1) of Section 10 or for the continuance of any use of land instituted before the said date.
19. Perused the record and considered the contentions advanced by both the counsels.
17
20. We have observed that the petitioners filed an application for change of use of their land classified as agricultural into residential which has been rejected by the Respondent No.2. The 2nd respondent/authority, after examining all the factors, have come to a conclusion that the development in isolation in agricultural zone would not be in the interest of planned development in and around the area and has rejected the application of the petitioners. Further, it is contended if change of land use is permitted and since the petitioners intend to form a layout for sale of third parties, civic amenities cannot be provided by the planning authority and/or the municipal authority and further, the State Government also issued guidelines on 12.10.2022 regarding the manner in which the planning authority would have to consider an application for change of land use.
21. In view Section 14-A of the KTCP Act and the guidelines dated 12.10.2012 and report of the Tahsildar dated 15.02.2020, it is the authority which has to decide whether the land use is permissible keeping in view future developments proposed in terms of the planned development area. The authorities has to stop uncontrolled development of land and to direct the future growth standards of environmental health and hygiene and create 18 facilities. It is needless to say that the land of the petitioners is situated in agricultural zone and has not been reserved for any particular planning purposes.
22. Further, it is observed that the single Bench has given an opportunity to the petitioners to file an affidavit. If the petitioners were not interested in obtaining civic amenities for now and also that they would inform the probable purchasers of the safely measures which have been enumerated by the planning authority. However, the petitioners were not willing to file any such affidavit before the learned Single Judge.
23. In any angle, the appeal would not sustain on merits and there is no illegality and/or arbitrariness in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
24. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV CT-ADP