The petitioner's property, classified as a commercial axes, is permitted to be used for commercial purposes under Category C-3 of the Development Control Regulations.

ORDER :

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

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the endorsement dated 09.12.2022 passed by the 2nd Respondent in No. MyNaPra/NaYoSha/PraaPraPa/1209/ 2022-23 vide Annexure-J.

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus to the 2nd Respondent to accord sanction to the building license to the petitioner to put up commercial building over the petition Schedule Property.

(c) Pass such other Orders, grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The respondent No. 2-Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) had notified various sites including Site No. 3165, Vijaynagar 4th Stage, II Phase, Mysuru for sale by way of public auction under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘Rules 1991’).

3. The petitioner having participated in the said public auction was declared to be the highest bidder for site No. 3165 for an amount of Rs. 2,59,82,000/-. In pursuance thereof, a registered sale deed came to be registered in favour of the petitioner on 06.12.2021. The katha of the property having been transferred in the name of the petitioner, the petitioner has made the payment of necessary taxes in relation thereto.

4. The petitioner by taking advantage of the classification of the land as commercial axes under Regulation 6.6.1(2) of the Development Control Regulations (DCR) issued by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority had applied for sanction of plan on the said property for construction of a commercial office space. The same came to be rejected by respondent No. 2 vide its endorsement dated 04.12.2019 for the reason that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Vinayak House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka, 2019 INSC 952 (Civil Appeal No. 3600/2011) had observed that any Planning or Development Authorities in the State of Karnataka including BDA shall not permit change of land use of any particular property designated for a particular purpose in the layout plan which has been sanctioned and as such, contending that use of a site in a residential layout for commercial office building would come within the purview of the said judgment refused the plan sanction. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Sri. A.V. Nishanth, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that:

5.1. There is a specific categorization of the plot of the petitioner made in terms of Regulation 6.6 of the DCR and in terms thereof, the property of the petitioner being bounded by 24 mtrs wide road has been given special treatment as a “commercial axes” entitling the petitioner to make use of the said property for any of the uses that are permitted under Category C-3 (C-3) of the DCR.

5.2. Item No. 1 of C-3 includes commercial and corporate offices and this is the very purpose for which the petitioner intends to make use of the same. He specifically submits that the petitioner would not be making use of the property for any other purpose other then as a commercial corporate office under Item No. 1 of C-3 which is permissible and on this ground, he submits that the respondent having auctioned the property under the Rules, 1991 and as such, he submits that the plan as submitted by the petitioner ought to have been approved by respondent No. 2.

6. Ms. Poonam S.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit that since the site has been shown for residential purposes, the authorities being of the considered opinion that the same would come within the ambit of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3600/2011 referred supra and has rejected the plan submitted by the petitioner and no fault could be found with respondent No. 2 and as such, the petitioner would not be entitled for sanction of such a plan on a residential plot.

7. Sri. G.M. Ananda, lea