Sri P V Shankar vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
2025 Latest Caselaw 6561 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri P V Shankar vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 23 June, 2025

                                                  -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC:21852
                                                          WP No. 16643 of 2025


                      HC-KAR




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                                 BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                             WRIT PETITION NO.16643 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
                      BETWEEN:

                      SRI P V SHANKAR
                      S/O VENKATASWAMY SHETTY,
                      AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
                      RESIDING AT NO.17/1, 2ND CROSS,
                      TATA SILK FARM, BANGALORE SOUTH,
                      BASAVANGUDI,
                      BANGALORE-560 004.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER

                      (BY SRI. LAKAMAPURMATH CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
Digitally signed by         REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER
NAGARAJA B M
                            N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE- 560 002.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             2.    ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING SOUTH)
                            BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
                            SOUTH END CIRCLE,
                            BANGALORE 560 004.

                      3.    ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING)
                            SOUTH 7, BHRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
                            PALIKE, SOUTH END CIRCLE,
                            BANGALORE- 560 004.

                      4.    ASSISTANT ENGINEER
                            SOUTH 8,
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC:21852
                                     WP No. 16643 of 2025


HC-KAR



    BHRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
    SOUTH END CIRCLE,
    BANGALORE- 560 004.

                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S.KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 06.05.2025 IN
PROJECT   NO.   PRJ/   1150/25-26   IN  LP   NO.BBMP/
SUT/TVP/ADTP/0129/25-26   ISSUED   BY  3RD  AND   4TH
RESPONDENTS REJECTING APPLICATION OF PETITIONER FOR
SANCTION OF LICENCE PLAN, SEEKING GRANT OF LICENCE
PLAN OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.

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

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM


                      ORAL ORDER

In the captioned petition, petitioner is primarily

aggrieved by the impugned endorsement vide Annexure-A

dated 06.05.2025 issued by the respondent Nos.3 and 4

thereby rejecting the petitioner's application for sanction

of licence plan.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

NC: 2025:KHC:21852

HC-KAR

3. The petitioner claims to be the lawful owner of

the schedule property bearing Site No.13, which forms

part of a layout developed in Sy.No.24 of Kadirenahalli

Village. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted an

application to the competent authority seeking a licence

for construction of a residential house on the said site.

4. However, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have issued

an endorsement declining the request for grant of building

licence. The rejection is premised on the ground that the

schedule property is abutting a drain and, as such, falls

within the designated buffer zone, thereby attracting

restrictions on development.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment

rendered by a Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.15298/2020, a

copy of which is produced at Annexure-K. In particular,

reliance is placed on paragraphs 6 to 8 of the said

decision, which are extracted below for ready reference:

NC: 2025:KHC:21852

HC-KAR

"6. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the impugned endorsement dated 18.02.2020 could not have been issued by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, declining to sanction the plan proposed by the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the property in question forms part of a layout formed by the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board, long before the RMP-2015 was finalised. It is also an admitted fact that all the neighbouring properties have been developed consequent to the plan being sanctioned by the respondent-BBMP. The predicament of the petitioner is understandable, since all the neighbouring owners were permitted to put up construction, but the petitioner is denied a sanction plan by virtue of the wrong understanding of the orders passed by the NGT which was also subsequently clarified and set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is noticeable that the orders passed by the NGT on 04.05.2016 was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.03.2019 and the impugned endorsement is issued on 18.02.2020 long after the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. The position of law is required to be clarified since several such complaints/petitions are being filed by the citizens of this city who have been declined approval of plan on the ground that certain directions are given by the NGT. In view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India setting aside the directions given by the NGT, what remains is the implementation of the

NC: 2025:KHC:21852

HC-KAR

Zonal Regulations, RMP-2015 and subsequent revised master plan, if any has been approved and newly notified. As noticed earlier, the requirement of having a buffer zone of 50 meters, 25 meters and 15 meters should be made applicable only to Drains newly identified while finalizing the RMP-2015 and at any rate it should not be applicable to the drains that were already in existence prior to finalization of RMP-2015. If layouts are formed prior to finalization of RMP-2015, the requirement of setting apart buffer zone as contemplated in the zonal regulation of RMP-2015 is not applicable.

8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 18.12.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-BBMP authorities are directed to process the application filed by the petitioner. However, since the plan submitted by the petitioner online being rejected, the petitioner is required to submit a fresh proposal for sanction of plan online. As and when the petitioner files the application, the respondent authorities shall consider the same in the light of the orders passed by this Court and process the application as expeditiously as possible."

6. On a detailed consideration of the judgment

rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.

No.15298/2020, it becomes evident that the

implementation of the Revised Master Plan-2015 (RMP-

NC: 2025:KHC:21852

HC-KAR

2015) and the buffer zone regulations contemplated

therein are to be applied prospectively and not

retrospectively. The Coordinate Bench has categorically

held that the buffer zone requirements introduced under

the RMP-2015 namely 50 meters, 25 meters, and 15

meters from various categories of storm water drains are

applicable only to the layouts that were newly identified

during the finalization of RMP-2015 and not to those

already in existence prior thereto. It has been further

clarified that in cases where layouts were lawfully formed

prior to the coming into force of RMP-2015, the zoning and

buffer restrictions introduced subsequently cannot be

pressed into service to deny sanction of building plans.

7. In the present case, the petitioner has placed

material on record to show that the schedule property

forms part of a duly approved layout sanctioned on

12.01.1993, much prior to the finalization and

enforcement of the RMP-2015. The petitioner, therefore,

contends that the newly introduced buffer zone

NC: 2025:KHC:21852

HC-KAR

requirements under RMP-2015 cannot be made applicable

to the said site, as it falls within a pre-existing and lawfully

formed layout. This submission gains credence from the

observations and findings of the Coordinate Bench in the

aforesaid decision, which squarely applies to the facts of

the present case.

8. The petitioner has further demonstrated that all

neighbouring site owners forming part of the same layout

have been granted building plan approvals and have

proceeded with construction, whereas the petitioner alone

has been arbitrarily denied sanction of the plan. The

impugned endorsement declining to sanction the plan is

therefore manifestly unsustainable in law, as it rests on a

misapplication of the buffer zone guidelines that were

introduced only under the RMP-2015 and cannot

retrospectively affect validly sanctioned layouts formed

earlier.