2. In the captioned petition, petitioner has sought
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
madamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or
direction directing the Respondent No.2 Planning
Authority to release the 'Commercial (Petrol Bunk)
Purpose Single Plot Layout' approval as sought for by the
Petitioner, excluding the portion earmarked for road
widening;"
NC: 2025:KHC:19493
HC-KAR
3. The petitioner is the absolute owner of land
bearing Survey No.375/3 measuring 10 guntas and Survey
No.375/4 measuring 25 guntas, both situated at Bannur
Village, Bannur Hobli, T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District,
having acquired the said properties under a registered sale
deed dated 02.09.1998. Pursuant to acquisition, the
petitioner obtained necessary conversion orders permitting
use of the said lands for non-agricultural commercial
purposes.Subsequently, the petitioner entered into a
registered lease agreement with one Mr. Shivaprasad S.A.
for a period of 20 years to facilitate the establishment of a
retail outlet of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited on the aforesaid lands.The petitioner further avers
that the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, vide
Official Memorandum dated 29.02.2024, accorded
conversion of land in Survey No.375/4 measuring 25
guntas specifically for commercial (petrol bunk) purposes.
Thereafter, by another Official Memorandum dated
05.06.2024, conversion was also granted for the land in
NC: 2025:KHC:19493
HC-KAR
Survey No.375/3 measuring 10 guntas for the same
specified use.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned
order dated 07.10.2024 whereby, while granting technical
approval for the Single Plot Layout Plan, the authority has
imposed Condition No.8 mandating gratuitous
relinquishment of land towards road margin. The said
condition is arbitrary, onerous, and without authority of
law.
5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner
has questioned the order passed by respondent No.2 in
entirety, today a memo is filed restricting the challenge to
only condition No.8 imposed for approving the single plot
layout plan.
6. Petitioner's counsel while questioning the
validity of condition No.8 has placed reliance on the
reported judgment rendered by the Co-Ordinate Bench in
an analogous case. Referring to the judgment, he would
NC: 2025:KHC:19493
HC-KAR
point out that this issue is no more res integra and the
same is given quietus by the Co-Ordinate Bench in batch
of writ petitions.
7. Having heard the learned counsel on record,
this Court has given its anxious consideration to the
observations made by the Co-Ordinate Bench in the case
of Dr. Arun Kumar B.C. .vs. State of Karnataka and
others [W.P.No.9408/2020 and connected matters]
D.D. on 17.1.2022. This Court deems it fit to extract
paragraphs 24 to 26 of the said judgment, which reads as
under:
"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.
NC: 2025:KHC:19493
HC-KAR
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 & 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 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 allowed:
ii) The Circular dated 29.2.2016 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
NC: 2025:KHC:19493
HC-KAR
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."
In light of the authoritative pronouncement made by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Arun Kumar B.C. vs.
State of Karnataka and Others [W.P.No.9408/2020 and
connected matters, disposed of on 17.01.2022], this Court
has carefully examined the validity and sustainability of
Condition No.8 imposed in the impugned order dated
07.10.2024 (Annexure-A), whereby the petitioner has
been directed to relinquish a portion of land gratuitously
towards road margin as a condition precedent for
approving the single plot layout plan.
8. The Co-ordinate Bench, after an exhaustive
analysis of constitutional and statutory provisions,
NC: 2025:KHC:19493
HC-KAR
specifically held that the executive circular dated
29.02.2016 issued by the BBMP, which required
landowners to surrender property free of cost for road
widening while sanctioning building plans, was violative of
Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The said Article
guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his
property save by authority of law. In paragraph 24 of the
said judgment, the Co-ordinate Bench has unequivocally
observed that in the absence of specific statutory authority
or a valid legal framework authorizing such deprivation,
any condition mandating surrender of land without
compensation is unconstitutional and unenforceable.
9. Further, in paragraph 25, it was rightly
observed that such a condition is also discriminatory and
arbitrary, inasmuch as it creates an artificial classification
between those landowners who seek building plan
approvals and those who do not, despite both sets of
landowners being similarly placed under the Revised
Master Plan 2015. The Bench held that landowners
NC: 2025:KHC:19493
HC-KAR
intending to develop their properties cannot be compelled
to relinquish their rights without due process of law and
without the payment of compensation as contemplated
under Section 71 of the Karnataka Town and Country
Planning Act, 1961, if and when the land is acquired for
implementing the Master Plan.
10. Relying on this binding precedent, this Court is
of the considered view that the imposition of Condition
No.8 in the impugned order, which mandates gratuitous
relinquishment of land towards road margin, suffers from
the very same legal infirmities highlighted by the Co-
ordinate Bench. It is manifestly arbitrary, lacks legislative
sanction, and directly infringes upon the petitioner's
constitutional right to property. Therefore, such a
condition cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
11. Accordingly, this Court finds it just and proper
to quash Condition No.8 imposed in the impugned order
dated 07.10.2024 (Annexure-A), while upholding the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19493
HC-KAR
remaining portion of the order, which does not suffer from
any legal infirmity.
12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Condition No.8 of the impugned order vide
Annexure-A is hereby set aside.
(iii) Consequently, Respondent No.2/Planning
authority is hereby directed to release
Commercial (Petrol Bunk Purposes) single plot
layout plan excluding the portion ear marked for
road widening.
(iv) This exercise shall be accomplished within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ALB
