Karnataka High Court
Reddy Shelters Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 8 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.35325 OF 2015 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
REDDY SHELTERS PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT,
WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.133/1, 2ND FLOOR,
THE RESIDENCY , RESIDENCY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR. K. PRAVEEN.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.S. RADHANANDAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING &
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 )
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
HIGH TECH CORRIDOR AS PRESCRIBED IN THE RMP-2015
INSOFAR AS THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED
DOES NOT SERVE ANY USEFUL PURPOSE IN VIEW OF THE
ORDER DATED 30TH JULY, 2008 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.10800 OF 2005 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH)
In this writ petition, the petitioner-Company has sought
for declaration that the High-Tech Corridor as per Revised
Master Plan-2015 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'RMP-
2015) does not serve any purpose in view of the order dated
30th July, 2008 (Annexure-D) passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.10800 of 2005 and connected petitions; inter alia
sought for quashing the Endorsements dated 06th February,
2015 (Annexure-K) and 23rd February, 2015 (Annexure-M),
3
issued by the respondent No.2, so also, seeking direction to the
respondent No.2 to modify the relinquishment deed dated 12th
August, 2015 (Annexure-E) and to re-transfer the extent of
land reserved for High Tech Corridor in favour of the petitioner-
Company.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner-
Company is the owner of the land bearing Survey Nos.4/1, 4/2,
4/3, 4/4, 5/1, 5/2, 7/1, 7/2, 7/3, 8/1, 8/2, 8/3, 8/4, 8/5, 8/6
and 8/8 of Naganathapura Village, Bengaluru South Taluk which
were converted for residential purpose as per the order of
conversion dated 23rd October, 2008 (Annexure-A1), 15th
January, 2013 (Annexures 'A2' 'A3' and 'A4'). It is stated in the
writ petition that the respondent No.1-Government had issued
Notification dated 14th February, 2005 which was Gazetted on
15th February, 2005 (Annexure-B) under Section 19(1) of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'BDA Act') to acquire various lands for
the purpose of formation of "High-Tech City Layout and Road
between Sarjapura Road and Hosur Road" including, the land
bearing Survey Nos. 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/5, 5/1, 5/2, 7/1, 7/2, 7/3,
4
8/1, 8/2, 8/4, 8/5, 8/6 and 8/8 of Naganathapura Village,
Bengaluru South Taluk. The respondent No.2 has issued the
Comprehensive Development Plan (for short, hereinafter
referred to as 'CDP') and the portion of land belonging the
petitioner-Company was identified in the CDP for the 'High-Tech
Corridor' (Annexure-C). It is further pleaded in the writ petition
that this Court, vide order dated 30th July, 2008 (Annexure-D)
in Writ Petition No.10800 of 2005 and connected petitions,
quashed the entire Notification dated 14th February, 2005
holding that the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority
has no jurisdiction to acquire the lands for the purpose of
development of industries and as such, the petition schedule
properties, which were identified under the CDP, did not
survive. Accordingly, the petitioner-Company has approached
the respondent No.2-Bangalore Development Authority to
sanction the plan to develop petition schedule properties. In
furtherance of the same, the respondent No.2-Bangalore
Development Authority sanctioned plan in favour of the
petitioner-Company, however, directed the petitioner-Company
to relinquish the area reserved for High-Tech Corridor in the
CDP and thereby, the petitioner-Company executed the Deed of
5
Relinquishment dated 12th August, 2013 (Annexure-E) in favour
of the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority. Pursuant
to same, the petitioner-Company has developed the property as
per the sanction plan of the respondent-Bangalore Development
Authority and divided the property into two portions, wherein,
Sites have been formed in one portion and remaining portion
was earmarked for civic amenities.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner-Company that,
since the entire acquisition proceedings was quashed by this
Court, and further, proposed High-Tech Corridor was dropped
and as such, the revised Master Plan-2015, issued by the
respondent-Bangalore Development Authority reserving area for
the formation of 'High-Tech Corridor' would serve no purpose
and in the said aspect of the matter, petitioner-Compancy has
requested the respondent No.2-Bangalore Development
Authority to modify the relinquishment deed dated 12th August,
2013 (Annexure-E) in terms of the letter dated 05th January,
2014. In response to same, the respondent No.2, by
reply/letter dated 06th February, 2015, replied that, even if the
High-Tech Corridor Project has been dropped, the area reserved
6
for Road in the CDP is saved under Section 69(2) of the
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'KTCP Act') based on its resolution
dated 25th February, 2012 (Annexure-L) in Subject No.31/2012.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner-Company that, as
the total extent of land was converted for residential purpose
and development has been made and further, the Revised
Master Plan-2015, classifying the lands as 'High-Tech City
Corridor' has been dropped and as such, the land covering the
High Tech City Corridor be used for residential purpose. The
respondent No.2, by resolution dated 25th February, 2012
(Annexure-L) in Subject No.31/2012, rejected the claim made
by the petitioner-Company as per endorsement dated 23rd
February, 2015 (Annexure-M). The said resolution dated 25th
February, 2012 in Subject No.31/2012 was challenged before
this Court, in Writ Petition No.25097 of 2012 and this Court, by
order dated 11th October, 2012, allowed the writ petition and as
such, quashed the entire resolution dated 25th February, 2012
in Subject No.31/2012. In that view of the matter, the
Relinquishment Deed dated 12th August, 2013 (Annexure-E)
7
said to have been executed by the petitioner-Company is to be
modified as the respondent No.2 has arbitrarily acted without
considering the fact that the entire resolution in subject
No.31/2012 has been quashed by this Court. Hence, this writ
petition is filed by the petitioner to declare that the High-Tech
Corridor as prescribed in RMP-2015 insofar as the land of the
petitioner-Company is concerned does not serve any useful
purpose in view of the order dated 30th July, 2008 passed by
this Court in Writ Petition No.10800 of 2005 and connected
petitions and accordingly, sought for modification of
relinquishment deed dated 12th August, 2013 (Annexure-E) and
to re-transfer the land reserved for High-Tech Corridor to the
petitioner-Company. Hence, this writ petition.
5. Heard Sri. B.S. Radhanandan, learned counsel
appearing of the petitioner; Sri. Manjunath K., learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1-
Government and Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.2-Bangalore Development Authority.
6. Sri. B.S. Radhanandan, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner-Company contended that the Revised Master Plan
8
for the city of Bengaluru for the term 2005 to 2015 was
finalized on 25th June, 2007 contemplating for formation of
High-Tech City and Road between Sarjapura Road and Hosur
Road and accordingly, Preliminary and Final Notifications were
issued by the respondents and same was set-aside by this
Court in Writ Petition No.10800 of 2005 and connected writ
petitions by order dated 30th July, 2008 and as the said order
dated 30th July, 2008 passed by this Court has reached finality,
he contended that, the petitioners were unaware about the
quashing of notifications by this Court and as such, the
respondent-Bangalore Development Authority ought not to have
insist for execution of relinquishment deed dated 12th August,
2013 (Annexure-E). He further contended that the action of
respondent-Bangalore Development Authority, directing the
petitioner to execute the relinquishment deed itself is contrary
to law and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
7. Sri. B.S. Radhanandan, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, by referring to the Regulation No.7.1.5 of the
Zoning Regulation to RMP-2015, submitted that, the roads as
shown in RMP-2015 shall be incorporated within the plan and
9
same shall be handed over to the respondent-Authority at free
of cost as contended by the respondent-Bangalore Development
Authority in their statement of objections, cannot be accepted
on the sole ground that the entire Subject No.31/2012 of
Bangalore Development Authority resolution was quashed by
this Court. In this regard, he submitted that the proposed
High-Tech City Corridor Road shown in RMP-2015 has been
incorporated in the residential development plan of the
petitioner-Company and the residential development plan of the
petitioner was approved on 24th August, 2013 by the
respondent-Bangalore Development Authority as per the
provisions of the KTCP Act, as well as the zoning of land use as
per RMP-2015, however, as the resolution of the respondent-
Bangalore Development Authority in subject No.31/2012 itself
was quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No.25097 of 2012,
by order dated 11th October, 2012, the action of the
respondent-Bangalore Development Authority is contrary to
law.
8. He further submitted that, in the case of DR.
ARUNKUMAR B.C. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
10
reported in (2022) 2 KLJ 553, this Court has held that the
direction of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike requiring
the petitioner therein to relinquish the property in question at
free of cost as a condition precedent for processing their
application for sanctioning of building plan was held to be
without authority of law and accordingly, the same yardstick to
be made applicable to the case on hand.
9. Learned counsel Sri. B.S. Radhanandan, appearing for
the petitioner-Company also places reliance on the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ Appeal No.100266 of
2022 and connected appeals decided on 07th October, 2023 and
argued that the impugned endorsements dated 06th February,
2015 (Annexure-K) and 23rd February, 2015 (Annexure-M) are
liable to be quashed. Accordingly, he sought for interference of
this Court.
10. Per contra, Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority submits
that the RMP-2015 was approved and Gazetted on 25th June,
2007, much earlier to the decision of this Court in Writ Petition
No.10800 of 2005 and connected petitions dated 30th July, 2008
11
and accordingly, refutes the contentions of the petitioner-
Company. It is further contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority
that the petitioner-Company has made an application for
approval of residential development plan in respect of 15 acre
11.5 guntas of land in various survey numbers of
Naganathapura Village referred to above and in terms of
Regulation 7.1.2 of the Zoning regulation to RMP-2015, 5% of
the total area shall be earmarked for civic amenities and
further, maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) available for the road
width above 12 meters and up to 18 meters is 2.25 and at
present, the road width of the petitioner property is 12.20
meters correspondingly, Floor Area Ratio would be 2.247 and
therefore, as the proposed High Tech City Corridor in RMP-2015
has been incorporated in the residential development plan of
the petitioner-Company, he contended that, no wrong has been
committed by the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority
in executing the relinquishment deed dated 12th August, 2013.
Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the petition. In this
regard, Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Bangalore Development Authority places reliance on
12
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHIRDI
NAGAR PANCHAYAT vs. KISHOR SHARAD BORAWAKE
AND OTHERS reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1214 and
DHANRAJ vs. VIKRAM SINGH AND OTHERS reported in
2023 SCC OnLine SC 724 and argued that, if the respondent-
Bangalore Development Authority gives the benefit of
development of land to the petitioner, the petitioner-Company
may use the same for commercial purpose and therefore, the
respondent-BDA is justified in directing the land owner to hand
over the portion of the land at free of cost for public utility and
therefore, argued that no interference be called for in this writ
petition.
11. In the light of the submission made by learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it is the case of the petitioner
that, the petitioner-Company is the owner of several lands as
mentioned at paragraph 1 of the writ petition and the land in
question has been converted for non-agricultural purpose. The
portion of the land belonging to the petitioner has been notified
for acquisition for the purpose of formation of High Tech City
and Road between Sarjapura Road and Hosur Road as per
13
notification dated 14th February, 2005 (Annexure-B) issued
under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority
Act. This Court, by order dated 30th July, 2008 in Writ Petition
No.10800 of 2005 and connected petitions, quashed the
Preliminary Notification dated 01st August, 2003 and Final
Notification dated 14th February, 2005. It is not in dispute that
the order dated 30th July, 2008 in the above writ petition and
connected petitions reached finality. In the meanwhile, the
petitioner-Company has made an application, seeking approval
of the plan and same was approved by the Planning Committee
of the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority in its
meeting dated 04th July, 2013 in Subject No.98/2013. It is also
to be noted that, as per Regulation No.7.1 of Zoning Regulation
of RMP-2015, it is mandatory for the land owner to relinquish
the portion of the sites for the purpose of making of civic
amenity Sites, parks and open space as well as to construct
roads in the layout. In this regard, petitioner-Company has
executed relinquishment deed dated 12th August, 2013
(Annexure-E) with the respondent-Bangalore Development
Authority. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that the
petitioner-Company has sought for modification in the
14
relinquishment deed on the ground that the project of
establishing High-Tech Corridor project was quashed by this
Court, however, the respondent-Bangalore Development
Authority sought to justify its stand as per resolution in Subject
No.31/2012 stating that the acquisition for High-Tech Corridor
Road was saved under Section 69(2) of KTCP Act. It is also to
be bear in mind that the planning authority had granted
permission to change the land use from High-Tech Corridor
Area to residential use and therefore, the modification of
relinquishment deed is required to be made in view of change in
the use of the nature of land. At this juncture, this Court in the
case of DR. ARUN KUMAR B.C. (supra) at paragraphs 21 to 26
held as follows:
"21. Chapter 7 of the Regulations 2015 deals
with the Regulations for residential development plan
and non-residential development plan. Regulation
7.1(5) and 7.2(d) specify that the road as shown in the
Master Plan 2015 shall be incorporated within the plan
and shall be handed over to the authority free of cost.
22. A reading of the definition of Development
Plan and Regulations 7.1(5) and 7.2(d) indicate that it
is a condition precedent to incorporate the road shown
in the Master Plan-2015 in the plan and shall be
15
handed over free of cost to the respondent-BBMP.
However, these Regulations are applicable to
Development of lands, the extent of which is more than
20000 sq. meters in respect of residential plan and the
extent of which is more than 12000 sq. meters in
respect of non-residential plan.
23. In the present cases, the extent of land
sought to be developed for residential/commercial
purposes is far less than the extent of land specified in
the definition development plan. Hence, the
Regulations 7.1(5) and 7(2)(d) of the Regulations 2015
are not applicable and cannot be invoked requiring the
petitioners to relinquish the properties in question free
of cost to the respondent-BBMP.
24. The Circular dated 29.2.2016 requiring the
owners to surrender the properties earmarked for
widening of road free of cost at the time of sanctioning
of building plans violates Article 300A of the
Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the case of KT
Plantation (supra) has held that the owner of
immovable property cannot be deprived of his property
by mere executive order without any specific legal
authority or support by competent legislation. In the
absence of specific legal authority or support by
competent legislation, the impugned Circular issued by
the respondent-BBMP violates Article 300A of the
Constitution of India.
16
25. Even otherwise, the impugned
endorsements and circulars issued by BBMP is arbitrary
and discriminatory since the owners of the properties
earmarked as Road in Master Plan 2015 and who have
not applied for sanctioning of building plan for
developing their properties will be entitled for
compensation under Section 71 of KT and CP Act, if the
said properties are acquired for implementing the
Master Plan. The petitioners cannot be deprived of
their properties earmarked as road in the revised
Master Plan, 2015 merely because they intend to
develop their properties by obtaining sanctioned
building plan.
26. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of
the considered view that the impugned endorsements
issued by the respondent-BBMP requiring the
petitioners to relinquish the properties in question free
of cost as a condition precedent for processing their
applications for sanctioning of building plans is without
authority of law and the same violate Article 300A of
the Constitution of India. Accordingly, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i) Writ Petitions stand dismissed;
ii) The Circular dated 29.02.2016 issued
by the 2nd respondent vide
Annexure-A & endorsement dated
20.5.2020 issued by respondent
No.3 vide Annexure-B in WP
No.9408/2020, endorsement dated
24.6.2021 issued by respondent
No.2 vide Annexure-G in WP
No.14095/2021, the order dated
18.12.2020 passed by respondent
No.2 vide Annexure-A in WP
No.14975/2021 and Circular dated
29.2.2016 vide Annexure-E issued
by respondent No.2 in W.P.
No.19737 of 2021 are hereby
quashed;
iii) The respondent-BBMP is directed to
process the applications submitted
by the petitioners for sanctioning
the building plans and pass
appropriate order in accordance
with law within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order."
12. The above judgment of the learned Single Judge was
confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal
No.335 of 2022 connected with Writ Appeal No.331 of 2022
decided on 28th September, 2022. Paragraph 7 and 8 of the
said judgment reads as under:
"7. The learned Single Judge has quashed the
circular issued by the appellants and the endorsement
issued based on the said circular on the ground that
the said documents are without authority of law and
therefore, they are in violation of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India. Even otherwise, it cannot be
countenanced that a citizen can be asked to surrender
or relinquish his right over his property free of cost in
favour of a statutory authority. In the present case,
the endorsements were issued by the appellants asking
respondent No.1 to surrender/relinquish his right in the
property based on the circular dated 18.12.2020 and
the circular dated 18.12.2020 and the said circular and
endorsement have rightly been quashed by the learned
Single Judge since the same were not supported by
any statutory provisions as contended by the learned
senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
8. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for
the appellants on Section 17 of the Act of 1961 is
misconceived as the appellant is not the specified
authority under the said provisions of law. Therefore,
we do not find any merit in these appeals. Accordingly,
we decline to entertain the same, and therefore, they
are dismissed."
13. This aspect of the matter was also considered by this
Court in the case of SRIVATSA DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS
vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY in Writ Petition
No.48258 of 2018. Paragraphs 12 to 15 of the judgment reads
as under:
"12. The BDA, BBMP or any statutory authority
can neither short circuit or be permitted to short circuit
the applicable law. A statutory authority is required to
follow the due process of law however arduous it may
be. It is only then that meaning can be given to the
principle or Rule of law otherwise the same would
result in Rule by law, which is not permissible.
13. In the present case, as could be seen, there
is no compensation which has been paid by the State,
BDA or BBMP to the petitioners for so called
relinquishment inasmuch as the relinquishment has
been executed as a pre-condition for the sanction of
the plan which is not permissible. Such a pre-condition
not being recognized under any law in force.
14. Mere demarcation of land for widening of
road in the Revised Master Plan (RMP) would not vest
the land in the state or the BDA. It only declares as
intention or a proposal to widen the road at that
particular location. In the event of the State or BDA
wanting to widen the road or carry out any
developmental activities requiring land or property of a
citizen of a country, the said State or any
instrumentality of the State cannot violate the rights of
the citizen of the country more particularly those
guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of
India. In such circumstances, the only power which
can be exercised by the State or any instrumentality of
the State is the power of eminent domain for
acquisition or requisition of the land by awarding
compensation in terms of applicable law as on the date
of such acquisition or requisition being made.
15. In the present case, no acquisition having
been made and no compensation having been paid, I
am of the considered opinion that the relinquishment
deed which has been obtained on the condition that
only thereafter plan would be sanctioned is not
sustainable. The execution of a relinquishment deed
cannot be a quid pro quo for such sanction of plan, the
relinquishment not having been mandated under any
law in force. No such mandate can be made since for
the process of sanction of plan does not require any
such relinquishment, the law contemplated that the
plan has to be in terms of the building laws and the
requisite fee be paid, which has been complied with by
the Petitions, there being no grievance on this aspect
by the Respondents."
14. It is also to be noted that the Division Bench of this
Court in Writ Appeal No.100266 of 2022 decided on 07th
October, 2023, at paragraph 29 and 35 to 41 held as follows:
"29. A perusal of the aforesaid Notification,
Circular and judgments will indicate that the "no
construction zone/road margin is earmarked for the
limited purpose of ensuring that no construction is
undertaken in the said area; however, the said
restriction placed upon the land owners from putting up
construction cannot be construed or treated as
preventing the land losers from claiming compensation
in the event the lands were acquired for road widening;
depriving the land owners from claiming compensation in
the event of acquisition of their lands falling within "no
construction zone/road margin" would clearly run
counter and contrary to their constitutional rights
guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of
India; further, in the absence of any nexus/connection
between the subject lands being allegedly demarcated
/earmarked as "no construction zone/road margin" under
the said Government notification/circular and the right of
the land owners to receive compensation towards
acquisition of the said lands, it could not be said that the
petitioners were not entitled to receive compensation; in
other words, demarcating/earmarking the subject lands
for road widening would have the limited/restricted
effect of preventing construction activity and would
neither affect the right, title, interest or possession of
the writ petitioners over the said lands nor their right to
receive compensation upon acquisition for road widening
and consequently, the said circumstance cannot be relied
upon by the appellants to deprive the writ petitioners of
their right to claim compensation or defeat their
Constitutional Rights guaranteed under Article 300-A of
the Constitution of India.
35. A perusal of Section 17 supra, will clearly
indicate that the same does not contemplate vesting of
the area adjacent to the State Highway and earmarked
for road widening with the State and its authorities upon
granting approval/sanction to the layout plan; Section 17
also does not provide for vesting of the said lands if they
are shown for road purpose in the Master plan; on the
other hand, Section 69 of the KTCP Act specifically
mandates that such lands designated in the Master plan
as 'public purpose/road' should be necessarily acquired
under the Land Acquisition Act leading to the sole
inference that compensation would be payable to the
land owners upon such acquisition. It is therefore clear
that mere designation of the subject lands as 'road
margin' in the Master plan would either vest the lands
with the State and its authorities nor would affect the
right of the writ petitioners over the subject lands
including their right to claim compensation and
consequently, even this contention of the appellants
cannot be accepted.
36. The material on record discloses that except
cases where plans had been approved/sanctioned under
the KUDA Act, the rest of the plans were
approved/sanctioned prior to KUDA Act coming into force
in 1987. It is needless to state that Section 32(5) of the
KUDA Act is not applicable to layouts
approved/sanctioned prior to KUDA Act coming into
force. As stated supra, the KUDA Act came into force
w.e.f 01.01.1988 and some of the subject layouts were
approved/sanctioned under Section 32 of the KUDA Act
r/w Section 17 of the KTCP Act. In this context, it is the
specific contention of the appellants that by virtue of
Section 32(5) of the KUDA Act, the writ petitioners are
not entitled to claim compensation upon the layout plan
being sanction/approved under Section 32 of the KUDA
Act. In order to appreciate this contention, it is profitable
to extract Section 32 of the KUDA Act, which reads as
under:-
"32. Formation of new extension or lay-outs or
making new private streets.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in
any law for the time being in force, no person
shall form or attempt to form any extension or
lay-out for the purpose of constructing building
thereon without the express sanction in writing
of the Authority and except in accordance with
such conditions as the Authority may specify
Provided that where any such extension or
layout lies within the local limits of a local
authority, the Authority shall not sanction the
formation of such extension or lay out without
the concurrence of the local authority: Provided
further that where the local authority and the
Authority do not agree on the formation of or the
conditions relating to the extension or layout,
the matter shall be referred to the Government,
whose decision thereon shall be final.
(2) Any person intending to form an extension or
layout, or to make a new private street shall
send to the Commissioner a written application
with plans and sections showing the following
particulars :-
(a) the laying out of the sites of the area
upon streets, lands or open spaces;
(b) the intended level, direction and width of
the street; 18
(c) the street alignment and the building line
and the proposed sites abutting the streets;
(d) the arrangement to be made for levelling,
paving, metalling, flagging, channelling,
swearing, draining, conserving and lighting the
streets and for adequate drinking water supply.
(3) The provisions of this Act and any rules or
bye- laws made under it as to the level and
width of streets and the height of buildings
abutting thereon shall apply also in the case of
streets referred to in sub-section (2) and all the
particulars referred to in that sub-section shall
be subject to the approval of the Authority.
(4) Within six months after the receipt of any
application under sub-section (2), the Authority
shall either sanction the forming of the extension
or layout to be in conformity with the guidelines
to be issued by the Government or making of
street on such conditions as it may think fit or
disallow it or ask for further information with
respect to it.
(5) The Authority may require the applicant to
deposit, before sanctioning the application, the
sums necessary for meeting the expenditure for
making roads, side drains, culverts, underground
drainage and water supply and lighting and
charges for such other purpose as such applicant
may be called upon by the Authority, provided
the applicant also agrees to transfer the
ownership of the roads, drains, water supply
mains, parks and open spaces, civic amenity
areas laid out by him to the Authority,
permanently without claiming any compensation
therefor.
(6) Such sanction may be refused,-
(i) if the proposed street would conflict with
any arrangements which have been made or
which in the opinion of the Authority is likely
to be made for carrying out any general
scheme of street improvement or other
schemes or development or expansion by the
Authority:
(ii) if the proposed street does not conform to
the provisions of the Act, rules and bye-laws
referred to in sub- section (3): or
(iii) if the proposed street is not designed so
as to connect one end with a street which is
already open; or
(iv) if the layout in the opinion of the
Authority cannot be fitted with any existing or
proposed expansion or development schemes
of the Authority.
(7) No person shall form a layout or make any
new private street without the sanction of or
otherwise than in conformity with the conditions
imposed by the Authority. If the Authority
requires further information from the applicant
no steps shall be taken by him to form the
layout or make the street until orders have been
passed by the Authority after the receipt of such
information: Provided that the passing of such
orders shall not, in any case, be delayed for
more than six moths after the Authority has
received all the information which it considers
necessary to enable it to deal finally with the
said application.
(8) If the Authority does not refuse sanction
within six moths from the date of the application
under sub- section (2) or from the date of
receipt of all information asked for under sub-
section (7), such sanction shall be deemed to
have been granted and the 19 applicant may
proceed to form the extension or layout or to
make the street, but not so as to contravene any
or the provisions of this Act and the rules or bye-
laws made under it.
(9) Any person who forms or attempts to form
any extension or layout in contravention of the
provisions of sub-section (1) or makes any
street without or otherwise than in conformity
with the orders of the Authority under this
section, shall be liable on conviction, to a fine
which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
37. A plain reading of Section 32(5) will clearly
indicate that the same would apply only to internal
roads, sewers etc., formed in the layout and not to any
portion of the land earmarked for road widening under
the prevailing Master plan. Section 32(5) contemplates
that before granting sanction/approval, the KUDA
authority (HDUDA) is entitled to call upon the applicant
to deposit with the authority sums/monies necessary
for providing amenities viz., roads, culverts, drains
etc., provided the applicant also agrees to transfer
ownership of the same as well as parks, civic amenities
etc., in favour of HDUDA permanently without claiming
any compensation. This requirement of transferring
ownership roads, civic amenities etc., by the applicant
is clearly restricted to internal roads of the layout and
cannot be extended to include areas earmarked for
road widening under the prevailing Master plan; the
procedure prescribed to obtain sanction/approval under
Section 32(5) is unambiguous; before granting
sanction/approval, HDUDA will call upon the applicant
to deposit sums/monies for meeting the expenditure
for making roads, side drains, culverts, underground
drainage and water supply and lighting and charges for
such other purpose in the layout; in addition thereto,
the applicant would also have to agree to transfer the
ownership of the roads, drains, water supply mains,
parks and open spaces, civic amenity areas laid out by
him to HDUDA permanently without claiming any
compensation therefor; the twin requirement to be
fulfilled by the applicant prior to grant of
approval/sanction, viz., to deposit sums/monies
towards expenditure for roads etc., and to agree to
transfer ownership of roads etc., without claiming
compensation, makes it unmistakably clear that the
expression 'roads' contained in Section 32(5) is
restricted to 'internal roads' or 'roads formed inside the
layout' and will not be applicable to any portion of the
subject layout demarcated/earmarked for road
widening in the future.
38. To reiterate, wherever layout plans in relation to
the subject lands were approved/sanctioned under
Section 32 of the KUDA Act r/w Section 17 of the KTCP
Act, Section 32(5) of the KUDA Act cannot be made
applicable to any portion of the layout abutting the
subject Highway which have been
earmarked/demarcated for road widening in future,
either under the sanctioned/approved layout plan or
under the prevailing Master Plan and Section 32(5)
would apply only to those portions shown as
roads(internal roads), culverts, parks etc., within the
layout as provided in the said provision. Under these
circumstances, it is clear that Section 32(5) of the
KUDA Act would have absolutely no application to the
subject lands allegedly earmarked for road widening
either under the KH Act or under the prevailing Master
Plan and consequently, the impugned
awards/endorsements issued by the appellants
declining to grant compensation in favour of the
respondents/writ petitioners towards acquisition of the
subject lands have been correctly quashed by the
learned Single Judge.
39. It is also pertinent to note that even assuming
that Section 32(5) of the KUDA Act was applicable, in
the absence of any relinquishment deed/document
executed by the landowners in favour of the HDUDA in
respect of the subject lands allegedly earmarked for
road widening, the said provision by itself would not
have the effect of divesting the lands from the
landowners and transferring/vesting the same in the
name of HDUDA so as to prevent the writ petitioners
from claiming compensation; further, Section 32(5)
merely contemplates an agreement (to be executed)
by the landowners at the time of sanction/approval of
the layout and the said condition cannot be construed
or interpreted to deprive the landowners of their right
to claim compensation, particularly when such a
construction /interpretation to be placed upon Section
32(5) would run counter to Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India.
40. The appellants also contend that while granting
approval/sanction for single plot layouts and KIADB
layouts, the HDUDA had imposed a condition that the
areas earmarked for road widening would be
relinquished by the writ petitioners in favour of HDUDA
free of cost and since the writ petitioners had accepted
the said condition, they are estopped from claiming
compensation towards acquisition of the said lands.
This contention of the appellants cannot be accepted in
view of the judgments of this Court in Dr. Arun
Kumar's case, Vinod Damji Patel's case, Nagangouda
Patil's case and M/s. SNN Abode LLP's case (supra),
wherein it is held that such conditions are illegal,
invalid and unenforceable being violative of Article 300-
A of the Constitution of India, further, the Notification
dated 10.03.2006 issued by the State Government
under Section 13-E of the KTCP Act clearly indicates
that such a condition was impermissible and cannot be
imposed in respect of single plot layouts; significantly,
the said condition, even if legally valid would merely
require the writ petitioners not to oppose or raise any
objections in the event of acquisition of the lands for
road widening, but certainly would not affect their
proprietary or possessory rights over the lands nor
their right to claim compensation towards acquisition of
the lands, especially when there is no nexus or
connection whatsoever between compliance of the said
condition and the right of the writ petitioners to receive
compensation towards acquisition of the lands, which is
constitutionally protected under Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India; at any rate, in the absence of any
relinquishment deed executed by the writ petitioners in
favour of the HDUDA actually relinquishing/releasing
their rights over the lands by executing requisite
registered documents/deeds, we are of the view that
the writ petitioners cannot be deprived of their right to
claim compensation towards acquisition of the subject
lands.
41. Insofar as the contention urged by the
appellants that having obtained sanction/approval
subject to terms and conditions, the writ petitioners
were not entitled to approbate and reprobate and claim
compensation is concerned, the learned single Judge
has dealt with this contention and recorded a correct
finding that the said conduct of the writ petitioners
would neither militate against them nor operate as
estoppel against their right to claim compensation
towards acquisition of the subject lands in view of the
constitutional protection guaranteed under Article 300-
A of the Constitution of India; accordingly, we do not
find any illegality or infirmity in the said finding
recorded by the learned Single Judge warranting
interference in the present appeal."
15. The Division Bench of this Court in the above Writ
Appeal, considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of SHIRDI NAGAR PANCHAYAT (supra), relied upon
by the learned counsel for the respondent, and the judgment of
this court in the case of Dr. ARUN KUMAR B.C. (supra),
confirmed the order dated 22nd December, 2021 passed in Writ
Petition No.108208 of 2016 and connected petitions, wherein
identical issues have been adverted to, regarding execution of
relinquishment deed by the land owner in favour of the
respondent-Authority. In that view of the matter, the
respondent-Bangalore Development Authority has failed to
consider the fact that the KTCP Act is not applicable to the facts
on record and further the plan sanctioned by the respondent-
Bangalore Development Authority itself is not viable.
Therefore, the respondent No.2 is required to modify the
relinquishment deed dated 12th August, 2013 (Annexure-E) in
respect of area earmarked for the road within the petitioner's
project. Accordingly, the respondent No.2-Bangalore
Development Authority be directed to retransfer the extent of
land reserved for the formation of High-Tech Corridor which
ultimately quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No.10800 of
2005 and connected writ petitions. Following the law declared
by this Court, in the case of Dr. Arun Kumar B.C. (supra),
wherein, this court, in an identical circumstances, quashed the
impugned endorsement issued by the respondent-Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagare Palike, requiring the petitioners therein
to relinquish the properties in question free of cost as condition
precedent for processing their applications for sanctioning of
building plan, and as such, the present writ petition is liable to
be allowed by quashing the impugned endorsements.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) Writ Petition allowed;
2) Endorsements dated 06th February, 2015
(Annexure-K) and 23rd February, 2015
(Annexure-M) issued by the respondent
No.2-Bangalore Development are quashed;
3) The Respondent No.2-Bangalore
Development Authority is directed to modify
the relinquishment deed dated 12th August,
2013 (Annexure-E) within three months
from the date of receipt of this order, in
respect of the area covered for Road in the
subject land. Consequently, the respondent
No.2-Bangalore Development Authority shall
retransfer the extent of land reserved for the
project of High-Tech Corridor, which belongs
to the petitioner-Company, being acquired
and as narrated in the schedule to the writ
petition.
SD/-
(E.S. INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
