Back
2026 Supreme(Kar) 46
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Govindegowda K.B. S/o Late K.S. Basavegowda – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 13089 of 2025
Decided On : 06-01-2026
For the Appellant : Lingaraju K.R.
For the Respondents: Poonam Patil, G.M. Ananda, Spoorthi V.
Residential properties abutting commercial axis roads exceeding 24 meters can be sanctioned for commercial use, irrespective of their initial classification, as per Development Control Regulation Clause 6.6.1.
Headnote:(A) Development Control Regulation - Clause 6.6.1 - Commercial axis definition - The court held that a residential property adjoining roads of 24 meters width outside the outer ring road can be sanctioned for commercial use despite its residential designation, consistent with the precedent set in a previous ruling. (Paras 7, 11, 12)
(B) Distinction in designation - The court emphasized that the classification of a property as residential or commercial does not alter its applicability under Regulation 6.6.1 for commercial purposes. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash a rejection by MUDA for a commercial building license, arguing that his properties met the criteria for commercial axis under the Development Control Regulations.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the properties should be classified as within a commercial axis, therefore allowing the requested sanction based on prior judicial decisions.
Issues: Whether residential properties can be sanctioned for commercial use if located on a commercial axis and whether MUDA can deny such applications based solely on prior classification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that properties meeting the regulatory criteria for roads over 24 meters can be converted for commercial use, regardless of their residential designation, reaffirming earlier court rulings on similar matters.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's decision and order in favor of the petitioner (Para 1 , 12) |
| 2. petitioner's ownership and application for land use (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. reference to similar case supporting commercial use (Para 4) |
| 4. opposing counsel's argument on property designation (Para 5) |
| 5. application of regulation 6.6.1 to land use disputes (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
I. Issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the endorsement bearing No. My Na Pra/Na Yo Sha/Na.aa:Na Yo-02/1486/2024-25 dated 17.04.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A;
II. Issue a writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to accord sanction to the building license to the petitioner to put up commercial building in site bearing No. 10059 and 10059/A total measuring “18 X 24.50” Meters, situated in Vijayanagara 4th stage 2nd Phase Mysuru, in terms of order in writ petitioner No.3603/2023 dated 26.10.2023 vide Annexure-J;
III. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of the proceedings, so as to meet the ends of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner had purchased Site No.10059, measuring 18 x 24.50 metres situated in Vijayanagar 4th Stage, 2nd Phase, Mysuru in an auction conducted by Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA). Subsequent thereto, the Petitioner had also purchased another site bearing No.10059/A, and thereafter made an application for amalgamation of both the sites, which was so granted by the MUDA.
3. The Petitioner having approached the MUDA for sanction of plan for putting up of construction of a commercial building, the said application came to be rejected by the Respondents on 17.4.2025, on the ground that permitting of construction of commercial building would amount to change of land use, which has been prohibited by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Vinayak House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. The State of Karnataka , 2019 INSC 952 (Civil Appeal No. 3600/2011). It is aggrieved by the same that the Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. Sri.Lingaraju K.R., learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that:
4.1. a similar matter has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Mrs. Sunanda Narasegowda vs. the State of Karnataka, WP No. 3603/2023 dated 26.10.2023 wherein this Court has categorically come to a conclusion that if the property comes within a commercial axis, then even a residential property could be used for commercial purposes.
4.2. His further submission is that all the requirements of commercial axis are satisfied in the present matter also inasmuch as, as per the Development Control Regulations, for a property to be classified as a commercial axis, it should be bounded by 18 metres road and further, it should abut a road of 18 metres or more, and should be bounded by inner or outer ring road.
4.3. In the present case, the petitioner’s properties are abutted by 24 metres roads on two sides and the layout is bounded by a ring road. In that background, he submits that the requirement of the property being abutted by road in excess of 18 metres and being bounded by a ring road is satisfied, it would come within the meaning of commercial axis under Regulation 6.6.1 of the Development Control Regulation as held by this Court in Sunanda Narasegowda’s case (supra). Hence, the Petitioner would also be entitled to similar benefits.
5. Smt.Poonam Patil, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 - MUDA, would submit that:
5.1. There is a difference or a distinction in the facts of Sunanda Narsegowda’s case and in the present case inasmuch as in Sunanda Narsegowda’s case, the property, subject matter of that writ petition was designated as a commercial property, whereas in the present matter, the property of the Petitioner has been clearly and categorically shown to be a residential property
