IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31917 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. H.R.NAGARAJA SETTY SON OF LATE S.V. RAMAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING BEHIND VIVEKANANDA B.ED. COLLEGE, HENJAGONDANAHALLI EXTENSION ARSIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT PIN CODE 573103 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.M. GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Digitally KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, signed by SUMA VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001 Location:

HIGH

2. THE CHIEF OFFICER COURT OF KARNATAKA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ARSIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT PIN CODE – 573103 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

SMT. VIDYA S. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.05.2017 VIDE REFERENCE NO.NA.SA.AA(6) C.R./KA.PA./11/2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

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 petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.£À.¸À.C(6)¹.Dgï/PÀ.¥À./11/2017-18 dated 22.05.2017 issued by respondent No.2. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to consider her application dated 19.04.2017 for grant of licence and approval of the building plan.

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of sites bearing Nos.1 and 4 assessed by respondent No.2 as Khatha Nos.5636/A and 5639/A situated at Ward No.27 of Maruthi Nagar, Arasikere Town, Hassan district. He contends that he submitted an application dated 19.04.2017 before the respondent No.2 seeking grant of building licence along with a plan. Respondent No.2, however, rejected the said request by issuing an endorsement dated 22.05.2017, wherein it was stated that in view of the circular dated 22.01.2016 issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning, no building plan can be sanctioned unless the layout is duly approved.

3. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question now lies within the limits of the municipal council and therefore there is no need to get the land converted. He however contends that the erstwhile panchayat had sanctioned a layout plan, and therefore, the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is not in accordance with law and therefore warrants interference.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the impugned endorsement is issued pursuant to the circular issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning, by which, all municipal bodies were directed not to furnish a technical opinion for grant of building plans in respect of properties that were not converted for non-residential use or where, after such conversion, the layout of residential sites was not duly approved. She further submits that subsequently another circular dated 04.05.2017 was issued by the Director of Town and Country planning, wherein it was clarified that in respect of lands converted prior to 08.12.1976 and where Khathas were made out by the local authorities, technical opinion may be given for grant of building plan and licence. She submits that in the instant case, the land in question was not converted for non-agricultural purpose, though a plan was sanctioned by the erstwhile Panchayat. She therefore contends that the property of the petitioner is not formed in accordance with law and hence, even if the petitioner has obtained an E- Khatha, he is not entitled for sanction of building plan in view of the circulars issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the