Karnataka High Court

Smt. B. Shashikala vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC:22118
                                                       WP No. 16997 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.16997 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)


                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SMT. B. SHASHIKALA
                         W/O. LATE B.N. RAJKUMAR
                         AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

                   2.    SRI. B.N. CHAKRAVARTHY
                         S/O. B.V. NAGARAJ
                         AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

                   3.    SRI. B.K. MANJUNATH
                         S/O. B.V. KRISHNAMURTHY
                         AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by GEETHA P
G                  4.    SRI. B.P. ROHITH
Location:
HIGH COURT               S/O. B.V. PRASAD
OF                       AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
KARNATAKA

                         ALL PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT
                         NO.291, PUSHKARNI ROAD
                         NEAR MASJID, YELAHANKA
                         BENGALURU-560 064.

                                                               ...PETITIONERS


                   (BY SRI D. ASWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE)
                            -2-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC:22118
                                      WP No. 16997 of 2025


HC-KAR



AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPTD BY ITS SECRETARY
     URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
     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
     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,
                                  -3-
                                                   NC: 2025:KHC:22118
                                              WP No. 16997 of 2025


HC-KAR



BANGALORE-560002,           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-G., ETC.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM


                          ORAL ORDER

In the captioned petition, petitioners are 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 as

per Annexure-'G'.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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:-

NC: 2025:KHC:22118

HC-KAR

"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 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

NC: 2025:KHC:22118

HC-KAR

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 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.

NC: 2025:KHC:22118

HC-KAR

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:-

(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."

NC: 2025:KHC:22118

HC-KAR

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:

(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

NC: 2025:KHC:22118

HC-KAR

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:-

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed.

ii. Impugned order dated 08.01.2025 as per Annexure-G is hereby quashed and set aside.

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

iv. Initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of property 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

NC: 2025:KHC:22118

HC-KAR

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing.