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 4 th stage 2 nd 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 4 th Stage, 2 nd 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. 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 and as such, she submits that the decision in Sunanda Narasegowda's case would not be applicable to the present matter. 6. Heard Sri.Lingaraju K.R., learned counsel for the Petitioner, Smt.Spoorthi V., learned HCGP for Respondent No.1, Smt.Poonam Patil, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Sri.G.M.Ananda, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 and perused papers. 7. 6. Heard Sri.Lingaraju K.R., learned counsel for the Petitioner, Smt.Spoorthi V., learned HCGP for Respondent No.1, Smt.Poonam Patil, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Sri.G.M.Ananda, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 and perused papers. 7. The questions that would arise for consideration in the present matter are: 1) Whether the land coming within the designation/demarcation/classification of commercial axis under the Development Control Regulation, even if designated to be residential in the master plan, if used for commercial purpose, would amount to change of land use, coming within the ambit of the judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court in a Civil Appeal No.3600/2011? 2) Whether on that ground, respondent No.2-MUDA, could reject the application for plan sanction for commercial purpose, submitted by the Petitioner? 8. Both points related to each other are taken up for consideration together. 9. Regulation 6.6.1 provides for the designation of commercial axis and provides the situation where roads of 18 metres and above in layouts which are bounded by inner or outer ring roads, are recognised as commercial axis, and are included in that zone. 10. In residential areas, outside the outer ring road, that is areas beyond the area, stated in clause (1) of Regulation 6.6.1 having roads of 24 metres width, and above are recognised as commercial axis and are included in that zone. 11. Thus, Clause (2) of Regulation 6.6.1 applies equally to plots which have been designated for residential purposes in the masterplan and or the layout plan sanction granted by the MUDA, inasmuch as it being made clear that in residential areas outside the ring road, a plot abutted by 24 metres 24-metre-wide road is recognised as a commercial axis. 12. Thus, in that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the distinction of demarcation/designation of plot as a commercial plot and or residential property is a distinction which is not recognised under clause (2) of Regulation 6.6.1 of the Development Control Regulation. The said regulation would be equally applicable to plots, which are designated as commercial, as also to those plots, which are designated as a residential, requiring the MUDA to sanction plans in respect of that plot, for commercial purposes so long as the road abutting the plot, is more than 24 metres and is situated outside the outer ring road, which is the situation in the present matter. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the decision of this Court in Sunanda Narasegowda’s case would be equally applicable to the present matter. As such, I pass the following: ORDER: i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) A certiorari is issued. The endorsement bearing No.MyNaPra/NaYoSha/Na.aa:NaYo-02/1486/2024-25 dated 17.04.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 at Annexure-A is quashed. iii) A mandamus is issued directing respondent No.2 to consider the application for sanction of plan, for commercial purposes submitted by the petitioner in respect of Sites No.10059 and 10059/A situated in Vijayanagar 4 th Stage 2 nd Phase, Mysuru by considering the said plots to be coming within the ambit of a commercial axis and as per the observations made in the present order, and that made, in Sunanda Narasegowda's case, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.