The President vs The Principal Secretary
2025 Latest Caselaw 889 Kant

Karnataka High Court

The President vs The Principal Secretary on 10 July, 2025

                             1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

       WRIT PETITION NO. 58758 OF 2017 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

1.    THE PRESIDENT
      SRI RADHAKRISHNA HOUSE BUILDING
      CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
      KADIRENAHALLI, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
      BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
      NO.692(OUT HOUSE) 10TH A MAIN ROAD
      4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
      BANGALORE-560011.

2.    THE SECRETARY/DIRECTOR
      SRI RADHAKRISHNA HOUSE BUILDING
      CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
      KADIRENAHALLI, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
      BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
      NO.692(OUT HOUSE)
      10TH A MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK
      JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011.

3.    THE DIRECTOR
      SRI RADHAKRISHNA HOUSE BUILDING
      CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
      KADIRENAHALLI, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
      BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
      NO.692(OUT HOUSE)
      10TH A MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK
      JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011.
                                           ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. OMPRAKASH .B.V., ADVOCATE)
                                 2


AND:

1.   THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
     URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
     GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
     4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
     DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD
     BANGALORE-560001.

2.   THE COMMISSIONER
     BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
     N.R. SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE
     J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. BOPANNA .B, AGA FOR R1;

SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA GAZETTED NOTIFICATION DATED 14.04.2016 DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT NOTIFICATION NO. NA/AH/E302 MNU 2012 BANGALORE DATED 5.11.2015 BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE PARK SL.NO.329, SOUTH DIVISION, WARD NO.182, PADMANABHANAGAR, RADHAKRISHNA LAYOUT PARK, VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.07.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

C.A.V. ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by Sri.

Radhakrishna House Buyilding Co-Operative Society,

represented by its President and Directors(hereinafter

referred to as "Society") challenging the Gazette

Notification dated 14.04.2016, whereby certain civic

amenity sites situated in the layout formed in Survey

Nos.62 and 63 have been notified as park area. The

petitioners seek a declaration that Respondent

No.2/Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) cannot

assert any right or claim over the civic amenity sites

reserved in the approved layouts formed by the Society in

lands bearing Survey Nos.45, 46, 62, and 63, in the

absence of acquisition proceedings.

2. The petitioners/Society, aggrieved by the

issuance of the impugned Gazette Notification (Annexure-

H), contend that while obtaining layout approval from the

erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) in 1973

for Survey Nos.63 and 64, two civic amenity sites were

earmarked in compliance with statutory requirements.

However, the Society asserts that the ownership of the

said sites has at all times remained with the Society and

that the sites were reserved for specific civic purposes

such as the establishment of an educational institution,

community hall, hospital, cultural centre, and shops. It is

their case that the subsequent unilateral action by the

State Government in notifying these sites - which are part

of an approved private layout - as 'park area' and handing

them over to the BBMP, without following due process of

acquisition, is legally unsustainable and without authority

of law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/Society,

reiterating the averments in the petition, placed reliance

on the following judicial precedents to fortify the

contention that in the absence of acquisition, the State or

its instrumentalities cannot divest the Society of its

proprietary rights over the civic amenity sites:

(i) The Residents of MicoLayout V.s. JSS Mahavidyapeeta - W.A.No.6869/1996;

(ii) B.V. Omprakash V.s. State of Karnataka -

W.P.No.27224/2014;

(iii) Jayanagar House Building Cooperative Society V.s.

        Bruhat    Bangalore         Mahanagara      Palike   -
        W.P.No.7842/2022;
(iv)    Dr. Arun Kumar B.C. V.s. State of Karnataka &
        Others - W.P.No.9408/2020;
(v)     Manjunath R. V.s. Doddabylakhana house Building
        Cooperative   Society        Ltd      and   Others   -
        W.P.No.8570-73/1999;
(vi)    Smt. Shubashekar V.s. BDA - W.A.No. 3703/2012;
(vii) V.S.Balasubramanyam              V.s.         BDA      -
        W.P.No.6450/2013;

(viii) Chet Ram Vashista V.s. Municipal Corporation of Delhi - AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 430;

(ix) Shobha Developers Ltd, V.s. State of Karnataka and others - (2013) 3 KANT.LJ 229;

(x) Munibyrappa V.s. State of Karnataka - ILR 2018 KAR 300;

(xi) H.A.Balaji V.s. State of Karnataka - ILR 2011 KAR 2727;

(xii) Smt. Mangala Gowri V.s. H.N.Keshavamurthy - ILR 2001 KAR 3249;

(xiii) V.Prabhakar V.s. State of Karnataka - ILR 2002 KAR 3533;

Referring to the judgments relied upon, learned counsel

for the petitioners/Society would vehemently contend that

in the absence of either a relinquishment deed or

acquisition proceedings, neither the State Government nor

BBMP possesses the authority to notify the civic amenity

sites as park area. It is asserted that the Society

continues to retain title, possession, and control over the

said civic amenity sites, which were earmarked in the

approved layout for specific civic purposes. On this

premise, the learned counsel prays for quashing of the

impugned Gazette Notification.

4. Per contra, respondent No.1/State has filed a

detailed statement of objections. Learned Additional

Government Advocate (AGA), reiterating the contents of

the objections, submits that respondent No.2/BBMP

prepared a comprehensive list of parks, playgrounds, and

open spaces situated within its jurisdiction, which was

submitted to the State Government for approval as

mandated under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Parks,

Play-fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation)

Act, 1985.

5. The learned AGA further submits that, upon

receipt of the list, the State Government issued a public

notice through a Gazette Notification dated 10.01.2013,

inviting objections from the public. In response, the

petitioners' Society submitted objections specifically in

relation to the proposed playground area at Sl.No.329.

After due consideration of the objections received, the

State proceeded to notify the civic amenity sites located in

Survey Nos.62 and 63 as park area.

6. In this background, the learned AGA contends

that the Society's claim of continuing ownership over the

civic amenity sites, despite the statutory approval of the

layout and absence of express relinquishment, is

untenable. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ

petition as being devoid of merit.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned AGA appearing for respondent/State and

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/BBMP.

8. The following points would arise for

consideration:

(i) Whether petitioners/Society can claim right over civic amenity sites contrary to the layout approval sanctioned by the City Improvement Board in respect of Survey Nos.62 and 63 wherein two sites are reserved for civic amenities purposes?

(ii) Whether petitioners/Society having failed to release these civic amenities sites in favour of the Planning Authority can assert title over the same?

FINDINGS ON POINT Nos.(i) and (ii):

9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the

petitioners/Society had secured approval of the layout

from the then City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) in the

year 1973. It is also admitted that, as part of the

sanctioned layout plan, certain portions of the land were

earmarked as civic amenity (CA) sites. It is a well-settled

principle of law that once a layout is sanctioned by a

competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka

Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 or the Karnataka

Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, any land

earmarked for roads, parks, open spaces or civic

amenities in the approved layout stands statutorily

dedicated for public purposes. The act of approval itself,

which includes demarcation of such areas in the

sanctioned layout, amounts to implied dedication of those

lands for public use.

10. Once such dedication takes place through

statutory sanction, the ownership rights of the developer

or original landowner over the earmarked areas stand

extinguished to that extent. There is, therefore, no

requirement for an express or registered relinquishment

deed, as the statutory scheme operates independently of

and overrides the necessity for formal conveyance. The

legal consequence of layout approval is that such

designated areas vest with the local planning authority or

the municipal body by operation of law, and the developer

or Society is estopped from subsequently asserting any

ownership or proprietary claim over the same. This

principle has been consistently upheld by the Courts with

a view to safeguard public spaces and prevent

encroachment or misuse of lands reserved for civic and

community welfare.

11. In the instant case, while it may be true that

the Planning Authority failed to obtain a registered

relinquishment deed in respect of the civic amenity sites

situated in Survey Nos.62 and 63, such lapse on the part

of the authority does not create a legal vacuum or confer

any right on the petitioners/society to reclaim or reassert

ownership over lands already earmarked for public

purpose. The law is clear that once open spaces or civic

amenity sites are demarcated in an approved layout, they

stand dedicated for public use, and such dedication is

enforceable notwithstanding the absence of a formal deed

of relinquishment. The statutory dedication flows from the

sanctioned plan and the layout approval itself. The

Planning Authority or the concerned Urban Local Body

holds such spaces in trust for the benefit of the public, and

any private claim over such areas is impermissible in law.

12. This legal position has been reaffirmed by this

Hon'ble Court in the case of Mohan Vasudev Chavan v.

State of Karnataka & Ors. [W.P. No.102318/2016,

decided on 29.08.2023], where it was held that once

land is designated as a civic amenity site or open space in

a sanctioned layout, neither the local authorities nor the

original landowners have any unfettered right to alter,

alienate, or encroach upon such lands. The Court

emphasized that planning authorities must act as

custodians of these designated spaces and are under a

legal obligation to preserve them in accordance with the

sanctioned plan. It was further observed that permitting

reassertion of proprietary rights over such spaces would

defeat the very object and scheme of town planning and

erode the statutory mandate intended to serve the larger

public interest.

13. In view of the authoritative pronouncements

and the statutory scheme governing urban development

and planning, the petitioners' admission regarding

approval of the layout and the demarcation of civic

amenity sites is fatal to their claim. The moment the

Society secured approval of the layout with designated

civic amenity sites, it lost all proprietary interest over

those portions of land. Any claim now advanced by the

petitioners/Society to assert ownership or control over the

said civic amenity sites is not only legally unsustainable,

but also contrary to the settled principles of town and

country planning jurisprudence. Entertaining such claims

would undermine the integrity of the layout approval

process and encourage attempts to reclaim lands intended

for community and public welfare. Hence, this Court finds

no merit in the petition, which is liable to be rejected on

this ground alone. Accordingly points (i) and (ii) are

answered in the negative.

14. For the foregoing reasons, the prayer sought in

the captioned petition cannot be entertained.

Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly,

stands dismissed.

Sd/-

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

ALB