Karnataka High Court

Dattu Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025

                                               -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC:22115
                                                      WP No. 15982 of 2025


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                             BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                          WRIT PETITION NO.15982 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)


                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    DATTU KUMAR
                         S/O. BASWARAJ,
                         AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
                         AT NO.12/E-27, 6TH CROSS,
                         PRAKRUTHI NAGARA,
                         KOGILU ROAD, YELAHANKA,
                         BANGALORE-560 064.
                                                              ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI D. ASWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by GEETHA P
G                  1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location:
HIGH COURT               REPTD BY ITS SECRETARY
OF                       URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
KARNATAKA
                         VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

                   2.    THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA)
                         T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
                         KUMARA PARK WEST
                         BENGALURU-560 020.

                   3.    THE COMMISSIONER, BDA
                         T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
                           -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:22115
                                     WP No. 15982 of 2025


HC-KAR



     KUMARA PARK WEST
     BENGALURU-560 020.

4.   THE COMMISSIONER
     BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
     N.R. SQUARE
     BENGALURU-560 002.

5.   THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
     ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE
     YELAHANKA DIVISION, BBMP
     YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R.1;
SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 AND R.3;
SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 AND R.5.)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE BRUHAT
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE THROUGH ITS SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-1, TDR CELL, BANGALORE -
560 002, NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 14-B(4)(i) OF THE
KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1961 VIDE
NOTIFICATION NO.BBMP/CC/PSR(G)/2906/2024-25 DATED
08.01.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-H., ETC.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:   HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                                 -3-
                                                  NC: 2025:KHC:22115
                                             WP No. 15982 of 2025


HC-KAR




                        ORAL ORDER

In the captioned petition, petitioner is assailing

the notification issued by the fourth respondent / Bruhat

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike vide notification

No.BBMP/CC/PSR(G)/2906/2024-25 dated 08.01.2025.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited

judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition

No.13357/2025 c/w. Writ Petition Nos.13369/2025,

13385/2025 and 13392/2025, wherein the said notification

was the subject matter and the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court has held as under:-

"5. Taking into consideration the contentions raised and the impugned Notification of the respondent BBMP, it would be relevant to note the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in similar factual context in W.P.No.1166/2019 vide order dated 10.04.2019. The relevant observations made by the co-ordinate bench are extracted below:

"7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it is clear that the notification under Section 14-B of the Act

NC: 2025:KHC:22115

HC-KAR

that has been made by the respondent- BBMP is only an offer made to the property owners to give up their properties voluntarily in return for grant of TDR Certificates, which would be in lieu of monetary compensation. In fact, Section 14-B(6) of the Act would clarify the said position. The said provision reads as follows:-

"14-B. Benefit of development rights.-

(6) If the owner does not agree to surrender his 'Area' required by a Public Authority for any public purpose, for the Development Rights and demands for monetary compensation, then the Public Authority may acquire such 'Area' by providing compensation as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing."

8. In light of the provisions of Section 14-B(6) of the Act, it is clear that, if the petitioner was unwilling to accept the 'Development Rights Certificates,' which was being offered in lieu of monetary compensation, the respondent-BBMP would have to resort to acquisition under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing.

9. Hence, it is made clear that in light of the rejection of offer made by the respondent-BBMP, the BBMP would not

NC: 2025:KHC:22115

HC-KAR

interfere with the rights of the properties of petitioner. However, the respondent- BBMP is entitled to:-

              (a)      Initiate        appropriate
              proceedings     for   acquisition of

properties of the petitioner as may be required for the purpose of implementing their project under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing;


              (b)      They are entitled to obtain
              transfer    of  property    of   the

petitioner to the extent as may be required for the purpose of implementation of the project by negotiations after obtaining the Deed of Conveyance.

6. In light of the above, the present petitions are required to be allowed, while the impugned Notification dated 08.01.2025 under Section 14-B of the Act does not require to be set aside.

7. Hence, it is made clear that in light of the rejection of offer made by the respondent-BBMP, the BBMP cannot interfere with the rights of the properties of the petitioners till appropriate steps are taken to deprive property of the petitioners as prescribed under law. However, the respondent- BBMP is entitled to:-

NC: 2025:KHC:22115

HC-KAR

(i) Initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of properties of the petitioners as may be required for the purpose of implementing their project under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing;

(ii) They are entitled to obtain transfer of property of the petitioners to the extent as may be required for the purpose of implementation of the project by negotiations after obtaining the Deed of Conveyance.

(iii) All other contentions of the parties are kept open to be raised appropriately and direction is passed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners.

Accordingly, these petitions are disposed off."

3. In light of the above legal position, the Court in

the connected writ petitions held that while the impugned

notification dated 08.01.2025 under Section 14-B need not

be quashed, it cannot be enforced against unwilling

landowners. The Court clarified that the BBMP is not

entitled to interfere with the petitioner's property rights

merely on the strength of such a notification. Instead, the

BBMP must either:

NC: 2025:KHC:22115

HC-KAR

(i) Initiate proceedings for acquisition of the

petitioners' properties in accordance with the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other

applicable law, or

(ii) Enter into negotiations with the landowners and

obtain a registered Deed of Conveyance for voluntary

transfer of land, if the parties so agree.

4. It was further clarified that all rights and

contentions of the parties are left open and that the

petitioners shall not be deprived of their property except in

accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petitions were

disposed of with the above directions, while preserving the

validity of the notification in question but restricting its

operation against unwilling landowners.

5. In the light of the order passed by the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court proceeds to

pass the following:-

NC: 2025:KHC:22115

HC-KAR

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed.

ii. Impugned order dated 08.01.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.

iii. Respondent-BBMP shall not proceed with any demolition or dispossession of the petitioner's property without following due process of law.

iv. Initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of property of the petitioner as may be required for the purpose of implementing their project under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing.