Tailors’ Society’s Pending Layout Proposal Isn’t Protected By Koppal Planning-Area Notification, But New Authority Must Resume Review

The petitioners, office-bearers of a registered society, sought approval for a residential layout on land in Chilawadi Village.

Their proposal was forwarded for technical scrutiny; documents and a survey report were sought, and the petitioners state that they paid the prescribed scrutiny and other charges.

On 17 March 2026, a State notification under Section 4A(1) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, expanded the Koppal Local Planning Area to include Chilawadi Village.

Respondent No. 2 subsequently returned the proposal because the village had been brought within the expanded planning area.

The petitioners challenged that communication, contending that the notification protected their pending proposal.

Section 4A(1) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, was the statutory basis for the notification expanding the Koppal Local Planning Area.

Paragraph 2 of that notification protected only the categories of land, orders, and permissions specifically referred to in it; the Court held that it did not extend to a layout-approval application still pending without final approval.

Filing an application, paying scrutiny fees, or completing procedural steps does not, by itself, create a vested right to have the proposal considered by the authority that had jurisdiction before the planning-area expansion.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The petitioners’ proposal had undergone procedural steps before the notification, but no final layout approval had been granted.

The Court therefore rejected the claim that paragraph 2 protected the pending application or required the former authority to continue processing it.

As the land fell within the expanded planning area, respondent No. 6 was the competent authority to consider the proposal.

To account for the steps already taken, the Court directed respondent No. 6 to consider the application from the stage it had reached when the notification issued, subject to compliance with applicable requirements.

The Court upheld the return of the proposal and directed the petitioners to apply to respondent No. 6 within 15 days of receiving the certified copy of the order; respondent No. 5 must forward the relevant records within 15 days of receiving the order.

Respondent No. 6 must consider the proposal from its stage as of 17 March 2026, credit the ₹16,070 and ₹5,870 already paid, and may require further documents or applicable fees.

It was directed to expedite consideration and pass orders in accordance with law, preferably within four months of receiving the file; all contentions were left open.