Karnataka High Court
Mr Anthony Raju vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 September, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 12.08.2025
Pronounced on : 09.09.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.16370 OF 2023 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. MR.ANTHONY RAJU
AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE MR.RAYAPPA @ RAJANNA
2. MS. MARY STELLA
AGED 49 YEARS,
D/O LATE MR.RAYAPPA @ RAJANNA
3. MR. BALARAJU
AGED 35 YEARS
4. MR.DAVID RAJU
AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O LATE MR.RAYAPPA @ RAJANNA
5. MRS.TERESAMMA
AGED 62 YEARS,
W/O LATE SRI B. CHINAPPA
6. MR.SELVARAJU
AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE MR.RAYAPPA @ RAJANNA
2
7. MR.BHAGYAPPA BALARAJU
AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O LATE MR.RAYAPPA @ RAJANNA
ALL RESIDING AT MESTRIPALYA
SIVARAMAKANTHA NAGAR,
RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE
K.R.PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 077 AND ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDERS
M/S. ASN DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, SITE NO.4/1
PATTANDURU AGRAHARA
WHITEFIELD, K.R.PURAM HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR.K.ETHIRAJULU NAIDU,
S/O UDDADANNA NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI HANUMANTHARAYA D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
THE DEPARTMENT OF
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
K.P.WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. MEMBER, TOWN PLANNING
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
K.P.WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020.
5. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING NORTH
B.B.M.P, BENGALURU - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI M.UNNIKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R4;
SRI N.R.JAGADEESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
THE DESIGNATION OF SCHEDULE-B PROPERTY, MEASURING
453.23 SQ.MTRS CARVED OUT OF THE A SCHEDULE PROPERTY,
SITUATED AT RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE, K R PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK, AS ROAD IN RMP-2015 IS DEEMED TO
HAVE LAPSED U/S 69(2) OF THE KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY
PLANNING ACT, 1961 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PETITIONERS, ARE
ENTITLED TO USE THE B SCHEDULE PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL
OR OTHER PURPOSES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; QUASH THE
ORDER BEARING NO.BEMPRA/NAYOSA/MIS-1684/1968/2021-22
DTD 08.03.2022 ISSUED BY BDA THE R4 REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEMBER, TOWN PLANNING AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND
4
CONSEQUENTLY TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO SANCTION THE
PLAN ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONERS DTD 17.07.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-M FOR
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE APARTMENT
BUILDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 12.08.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an
order dated 08-03-2022 passed by the Bangalore Development
Authority ('BDA' for short) and seeking a consequential direction to
sanction the plan on the basis of the application submitted by the
petitioners for development and construction of an apartment
building.
2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
The father of the petitioners was the absolute owner and in
possession of the subject property in Sy.No.75 of Rachenahalli
Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk measuring 2 acres
5
08 guntas. The said land comes to be converted from agriculture to
residential purpose in terms of the order of the Deputy
Commissioner dated 11-02-2003. Consequent upon the death of
the father of the petitioners, all these petitioners are said to have
inherited the subject property. The property coming within the
jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for
short) khatha and all other municipal records got transferred into
the names of these petitioners. It is the submission that taxes have
been paid by these petitioners up to date.
3. On 17-07-2019 the petitioners submit an application for
sanction of building licence and building plan. The BBMP
acknowledges receipt of the application. The petitioners are said to
have paid an amount of ₹23.34 lakhs to the BBMP towards licence
fee. The BBMP then issues an endorsement stating that in terms of
revised Master Plan of 2015 a road passes through the subject
property and it would be able to sanction the building plan only
after shifting the proposed road. The petitioners then challenge the
said endorsement before this Court in Writ Petition No.12506 of
2021, but later withdrew the petition with liberty to file an
6
application under Section 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country
Planning Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) seeking shifting of the road.
The petitioners then file the application before the BDA under
Section 14A of the Act, for the purpose of shifting of the road which
passes through the schedule property. The BDA did not consider the
application. Therefore, the petitioners again approach this Court in
Writ Petition No.353 of 2022 seeking a direction to that effect.
After issuance of notice, the BDA issues an endorsement that it is
not permissible to submit a proposal for change of land use, if the
land comes within the existing or the proposed road in terms of the
Master Plan. The writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to
challenge the said endorsement. Therefore, the subject petition is
preferred by the petitioners challenging the said endorsement.
4. Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners, Sri N. Spoorthy Hegde, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1,
Sri M. Unnikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2
and 4 and Sri N. R. Jagadeeshwara, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 3 and 5.
7
5. The learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla appearing for
the petitioners would vehemently contend that the Master Plan
2015 came into effect in the year 2007. The BDA itself is not aware
as to when the proposed road would come up. He would take this
Court through a sketch to contend that all buildings have come up
on the adjacent sites of the property and laying a road there, is
next to impossibility. But, the BDA is wanting to hold the property
only because it has power under Section 69(2) of the Act. He would
submit that right to property by the petitioners as obtaining under
Article 300-A of the Constitution is put to jeopardy, by the act of
the BDA in not considering the application of the petitioners for
shifting of the road, when there is enormous space outside the
area. The BDA is seeking of its impossibility. Therefore, he seeks a
direction to permit shifting of the road and allowing petitioners to
have benefit of right to property.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Unnikrishnan appearing
for respondents 2 and 4 would vehemently contend that in terms of
Section 69(2) of the Act the acquisition will never lapse. If it is
reserved for public purpose, formation of a road is undoubtedly a
8
public purpose. The Master Plan 2015 no doubt came into effect in
2007. It is since then road is being thought of in the property and
the road does pass through the property of the petitioners in the
Master Plan. He would admit the fact that the father of the
petitioners owned the property long before drawing up of the
Master Plan. It is his contention this Court cannot direct shifting of
the road as it would run counter to Section 69(2) of the Act. He
would seek to place reliance upon several judgments, one of which
is considered by this Court itself holding that once in the Master
Plan if it is declared to be reserved for public purpose, the
acquisition would not lapse and that it cannot be taken away for
any other purpose.
7. The learned senior counsel would join issue in contending
that when this Court held so, the judgment of the Apex Court was
not yet in place holding that right to property cannot be made
illusory by the act of the respondents therein. He would paraphrase
the observations of the Apex Court to the case at hand to contend
that it is 18 years today that the BDA is holding this property for
the purpose of proposed road. Where is the proposal nobody
9
knows; when the proposal going to become a reality is again
nobody is aware. The BDA admittedly is not aware when it is going
to form the road. He would reiterate the prayer in seeking to quash
the endorsement and granting the prayers as prayed for.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The father of
the petitioners who was in possession and enjoyment of subject
property submits an application seeking conversion of land from
agriculture to residential purpose which came to be granted on
11-02-2003. The order of conversion reads as follows:
": ಅ ಕೃತ ಾಪನ :
ಷಯ: ೆಂಗಳ ರು ೆ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಪ ವ ಾಲೂಕು, ೆ.ಆ .ಪ!ರ "ೋಬ%, &ಾ'ೇನಹ%)
*ಾ+ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ. 75 ರ/ ಒಟು2 2.08 ಎಕ&ೆ:ಗುಂ: 45ೕಣ ದ ವ7ವ8ಾಯದ ಜ:ೕನನು;
ವ7ವ8ಾ<ೕತರ =ಾಸದ ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶ ಾBC ಭೂ ಪEವತ Fೆ ೋE G+ೕ.H.&ಾಯಪI
HJ.Kಾಗ7ಪI, &ಾ'ೇನಹ%) ರವರು ಸ/4ರುವ ಅ LFಾಂಕ: 3-2-2003.
ಉ ೇಖ:1) ತಹ4ೕ ಾ@ , ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಪ ವ ಾಲೂಕು ಇವರ ವರL ಸಂ: ಎಎOಎJ:ಎP
ಆ :438:2002-03 LFಾಂಕ: 7-2-2003.
10
2) ಭೂ ಪEವತ Fಾ ಶುಲB ರೂ.119790.00 "ಾಗೂ QೕR ಶುಲB ರೂ.55.00 ಒಟು2
ರೂ.119845.00 ಗಳನು; ಚಲJ ನಂ.ಎOಆ :120 LFಾಂಕ: 11:2:2003 ರಂದು
ಖTಾFೆ*ೆ ಅ ?ಾರರು ಜVಾ VಾRರು ಾ5&ೆ.
3) ಈ ಕXೇEಯ ಆ?ೇಶ ಮತು5 YಳZವ% ೆ LFಾಂಕ 7-2-2003 ಭೂ ಪEವತ Fೆ.
***
ಕFಾ ಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂ?ಾಯ ಅ ]ಯಮ 1964 ರ ಕಲಂ 95(2), 95(4) ಮತು5 95(7) ರ
ಷರತು5ಗಳZ "ಾಗು ಷರತು5ಗ%*ೊಳಪR4, ಕFಾ ಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂ?ಾಯ (Yದು@ಪR) ]ಯಮಗಳZ 1964 ರ
]ಯಮ 107(1) ರಂ ೆ ಎಕ&ೆ ಒಂದ ೆB ರೂ.54,450-00 (ರೂ^ಾ_ಗಳಂ ೆ ಅ ?ಾರರು ಉ ೇಖ(2)
ರ/ ನಮೂL4ರುವಂ ೆ ಹಣವನು; ಜVಾ VಾRದ `ೕ&ೆ*ೆ ಅ ?ಾರ&ಾದ G+ೕ.H.&ಾಯಪI
HJ.Kಾಗ7ಪI, &ಾ'ೇನಹ%)ರವರ ಅ ಯನು; ಪEಗa4, ೆ.ಆ .ಪ!ರ "ೋಬ%, &ಾ'ೇನಹ%) *ಾ+ಮದ
ಸ=ೆ ನಂ. 75 ರ/ನ ಒಟು2 2.08 ಎಕ&ೆ:ಗುಂbೆ 45ೕಣ ದ ವ7ವ8ಾಯದ ಜ:ೕನನು; ವ7ವ8ಾ<ೕತರ
=ಾಸದ ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶ ಾBC ಬಳಸಲು ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಷರತು5ಗ%*ೆ ಒಳಪಟು2 ಭೂ ಪEವತ Fಾ ಆ?ೇಶವನು;
"ೊರRಸ ಾC?ೆ.
1. ಈ ಭೂ:ಯು dಾವ ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶ ಾBC ಪEವತ FೆdಾC?ೆeೕ ಆ ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶ ಾBC
ಉಪeೕC4 ೊಳ)ಲು ಸfಮ ^ಾ+ ಾE_ಂದ, ಅಂದ&ೆ ಅgವೃLh ಮಂಡ%:4ಎಂ4:iಎಂ4: Vಾ/ನ7
]ಯಂತ+jಾ ಮಂಡ%: *ಾ+ಮ ಪಂ'ಾ_Yಗ%ಂದ ಮಂಜೂ&ಾYಯನು; ಪkೆಯದ "ೊರತು ಈ ಆ?ೇಶವ!
ಅನುಭವ?ಾರ]*ೆ dಾವ!?ೇ ಹಕBನು; ]ೕಡುವ!Lಲ.
2. ಈ ಭೂ ಪEವY ತ ಜ:ೕನನು; =ಾಸದ ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶ ಾBC Vಾತ+ ಉಪeೕC4 ೊಳ)ತಕBದು@. ಈ
ಜ:ೕನನು; ಪ =ಾ ನುಮY ಇಲ?ೆ ೇ&ೆ ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶ ಾBC ಉಪeೕC4 ೊಳ) ಾರದು.
3. ಈ ಜ:ೕ]ನ/ ಉ?ೆ@ೕG4ರುವ ಬkಾವjೆ ನlೆ "ಾಗೂ ಪರ=ಾನC ಇ ಾ7Lಗಳನು; ಅgವೃLh
ಮಂಡ%:4ಎಂ4:iಎಂ4:Vಾ/ನ7 ]ಯಂತ+jಾ ಮಂಡ%, *ಾ+ಮ ಪಂ'ಾ_Yಗ%ಂದ
ಅನುmೕL4 ೊಂಡು D ನಂತರ ಅನುmೕದFೆ*ೊಂಡ ನlೆ*ೆ ಅನುಗುಣ=ಾC ಕಟ2ಡವನು; ಕಟು2ವ!ದು.
ಸದE ಜ:ೕ]ನ/ ೇಔo ^ಾJ*ೆ ಅನುmೕದFೆ ಪkೆಯ?ೆ ಪರKಾ&ೆ Vಾಡಕೂಡದು.
4 ಇತ&ೆ ಅವಶ7=ಾದ ರ8ೆ5 Tಾಗ, ರ8ೆ5 Vಾ J, pಾ/ Tಾಗ ಇ ಾ7Lಗಳನು; ಅgವೃLh
ಮಂಡ%:4ಎಂ4:iಎಂ4:Vಾ/ನ7 ]ಯಂತ+jಾ ಮಂಡ%: *ಾ+ಮ ಪಂ'ಾ_Y gÀªÀjAzÀ
ಅನುmೕL4ದ ಬkಾವjೆ ನlೆ ಪ+ ಾರ "ಾಗೂ ]L ಷ2ಪR4ದ ]ಯಮಗಳ Eೕ ಾ7 ಸದE ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶ ಾBC
ಾ_@EಸತಕBದು@.
11
5. 8ಾವ ಜ]ಕ qತದೃr2_ಂದ ಸದE ಜ:ೕ]ನ/ನ ]=ೇಶನ?ಾರE*ೆ FಾಗEೕಕ 8ೌಲಭ7ಗtಾದ
«zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ, ]ೕರು ಸರಬ&ಾಜು, ಒಳಚರಂR ವ7ವ8ೆu ಇ ಾ7Lಗಳನು; ಆ&ೋಗ7 Fೈಮ /ೕಕರಣ ºÁUÀÆ
¨sÀzÀævÉUÀ¼À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ J¯Áè 8ೌಲಭ7ಗಳನು; ಾನೂನು Eೕ ಾ7 ಒದC4 ೊಡುªÀÅzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀ
ಜ=ಾ ಾ@EdಾCರುತ5?ೆ.
6. ಈ ಜ:ೕ]*ೆ vÁಕು ಪ o ಖ&ಾw ಜ:ೕ]ದ@/ ಕFಾ ಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂ?ಾ ಾ<@ 1964ರ ಕಲಂ 67
gÀA ೆ ಸ ಾ ರದ ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶ ಾBC ಾ_@EಸತಕBದು@ "ಾಗೂ ಪ+ಸು5ತ ಭೂ ಪEವತ Fೆ*ೆ ಒಳಪnÖgÄÀ ªÀ
ಸ=ೆ ನಂ.75 ರ/ 0.01 ಗುಂbೆ 45ೕಣ 'H' ಖ&ಾHನ/ ಬರುವ ಾರಣ ಇದನು; 8ಾವ ಜ]ಕ
ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶ ಾBC :ೕಸ/Eಸ ಾC?ೆ. ಈ 45ೕಣ ದ `ೕ ೆ ಅ ?ಾರE*ೆ dಾವ!?ೇ ಹಕುB ಇರುವ!Lಲ. ಈ
'H' ಖ&ಾHನ 45ೕಣ ದ ಹಕುB dಾ=ಾಗಲೂ ಸ ಾ ರ ೆB 8ೇEರುತ5?ೆ. ತಹGೕ ಾ@ ರವರು ಈ ಾ§ÄÛ
Dgï n AiÀÄ°è ಸIಷ2=ಾC ನಮೂLಸತಕBದು@.
7. ಸ ಾರದ ಆ?ೇಶದ ಸಂ:zಡಬೂ{R/7656-655 ಮತು5 H-6-54-5 ಮತು5 ೇಂದ+ ಸ ಾ ರದ ¸ÁjUÉ
ಇ ಾpೆಯ ಪತ+ ನಂ.z1:7(11) 67, LFಾಂಕ: 1-1-1966 ರಂ ೆ ಈ ಜ:ೕ]ನ/ ಕಟ2ಲು ಉ?ೆ@ೕG4ರುವ
ಕಟ2ಡವ! &ಾr|ೕಯ "ಾಗೂ &ಾಜ7 "ೆ?ಾ@Eಗ%*ೆ ಸಂಬಂ 4ದಂ ೆ ರ8ೆ5ಯ ಮಧ7KಾಗLಂದ 40 :ೕಟ
ಅಂತರವನು; ಮತು5 ಾ "ೆ?ಾ@E*ೆ ಸಂಬಂ 4ದಂ ೆ ರ8ೆ5ಯ ಮಧ7KಾಗLಂದ 25 :ೕಟ ಅಂತರವನು;
ಾLEಸ ೇಕು "ಾಗೂ ಈ pಾ/ ಪ+?ೇಶದ/ dಾವ!?ೇ ಕಟ2ಡವನು; ಕಟ2 ಾರದು.
8. `ೕಲBಂಡ dಾವ!?ೇ ಷರತು5ಗಳನು; ಉಲಂ~4ದ/ ಭೂ ಪEವತ Fೆ ಆ?ೇಶ dಾವ!?ೇ ಸೂಚFೆ
]ೕಡ?ೆ ರದು@*ೊ%ಸ ಾಗುವ!ದು ಮತು5 ಕFಾ ಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂ?ಾಯ ಾ<@ 1964 ರ ಕಲಂ 96 ರಂ ೆ ದಂಡ
ಶುಲBವನು; ಸಲು ಮುಂLನ ಕ+ಮ ೆ*ೆದು ೊಳ) ಾಗುವ!ದು, ಅಲ?ೆ ಈ ಜ:ೕ]ನ/ ಅನ ಕೃತ=ಾC
ಕi2ದ ಕಟ2ಡಗಳನು; dಾವ!?ೇ ಪE"ಾರ ]ೕಡ?ೆ ೆಡವಲು ಕ+ಮ ೆ*ೆದು ೊಳ) ಾಗುವ!ದು "ಾಗೂ ಅದ ೆB
ತಗಲುವ =ೆಚ•ವನು; ಭೂ ಕಂ?ಾಯ ಾ€ ಎಂದು pಾ ೇ?ಾರEಂದ ವಸೂ/ Vಾಡ ಾಗುವ!ದು.
-:ƒೆಡೂ7O ವರ:-
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ೆ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಪ ವ ಾಲೂಕು, ೆ.ಆ .ಪ!ರ "ೋಬ%, &ಾ'ೇನಹ%)
*ಾ+ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ. 75 ರ/ ಒಟು2 2.08 ಎಕ&ೆ:ಗುಂ: 45ೕಣ ೆB ಭೂ ಪEವY ತ ಜ:ೕ]*ೆ 'ೆಕುBಬಂL:
(ಎರಡು ಎಕ&ೆ ಎಂಟು ಗುಂbೆ Vಾತ+)
ಪ ವ ೆB : ಸ ಾ E ?ಾE
ಪG•ಮ ೆB: ೆ&ೆ ಅಂಗಳ
ಉತ5ರ ೆB : &ಾಯO ಎJ&ೋO ಬkಾವjೆ
12
ದ„ಣ ೆB: ಸುಂದ ಮೂY ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು
ಸq/-
(ಎP.ಎJ.Fಾಗ&ಾಜು)
...ೇಷ ಾ ಾEಗಳZ (ಕಂ)
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ೆ."
The subject property then becomes the subject matter of final
Master Plan and a portion of the schedule property was held for the
purpose of formation of road. The final Master Plan - 2015 came
into effect in the year 2007. This is an admitted fact, in terms of the
averment of the BDA in its statement of objections. It reads as
follows:
".... .... ....
6. It is submitted that the lands of the Petitioner
became subject matter of the Final Master Plan
which was notified on 29.01.2009 and as such a
portion of the land was held for the purpose of
formation of a road. That for the purpose of the above
petition, various provisions of the Karnataka Town and
Country Planning Act are as under:
11. Power of entry for carrying out surveys for
preparing outline development plan.--For the purpose of
carrying out a survey for preparation of an outline
development plan and for the purpose of preparing of such
plan, any person authorized by the Director or the Planning
Authority or any public servant or person duly authorized or
appointed under this Act may, after giving such notice as
may be prescribed to the owner, occupier or other person
interested in the land, enter upon, survey and mark out
such land and do all things necessary for such purpose.
13
12. Contents of Master Plan.- (1) The Master Plan
shall consist of a series of maps and documents indicating
the manner in which the development and improvement of
the entire planning area within the jurisdiction of the
Planning Authority are to be carried out and regulated, such
plan shall include proposals for the following. namely:-
(a) zoning of land use for residential, commercial,
industrial, agricultural, recreational, educational and other
purposes together with Zoning Regulations;
(aa) Present land use maps and proposed land use
map prepared for the local planning area, local authority
jurisdiction and for every ward within the local authority
boundaries.
(b) a complete street pattern, indicating major and
minor roads. national highways, and state highways, and
traffic circulation pattern, for meeting immediate and future
requirements with proposals for Improvements;
(c) areas reserved for parks, playgrounds, and other
recreational uses, public open spaces, public buildings and
institutions and area reserved for such other purposes as
may be expedient for new civic developments;
(d) areas earmarked for future development and
expansion:
(e) reservation of land for the purposes of Central
Government, the State Government, Planning Authority or
public utility undertaking or any other authority established
by Law, and the designation of lands being subject to
acquisition for public purposes or as specified in Master Plan
or securing the use of the landing in the manner provided
by or under this Act;
(f) declaring certain areas, as areas of special control
and development in such areas being subject to such
regulations as may be made in regard to building line,
height of the building, floor area ratio, architectural features
and such other particulars as may be prescribed:
(g) stages by which the plan is to be carried out.
Explanation:
14
(i) "Building Line" means the line up to which the
plinth of a building adjoining a street may lawfully extend
and includes the lines prescribed, if any, in any scheme;
(ii) "Floor Area Ratio" means the quotient of the ratio
of the combined gross floor area of all the floors, excepting
areas specifically exempted under the regulations, to the
total area of the plot.
(2) The following particulars shall be published and
sent to the State Government through the Director along
with the master plan. namely:-
(i) a report of the surveys carried out by the
Planning Authority before the preparation of such plan;
(ii) a report explaining the provisions of the Master
Plan:
(iii) regulations in respect of each land use zone to
enforce the provisions of such plan and explaining the
manner in which necessary permission for developing any
land can be obtained from the Planning Authority:
(iv) a report of the stages by which it is proposed to
meet the obligations imposed on the Planning Authority by
such plan.
(3) Master Plan shall indicate "Heritage Buildings"
and "Heritage Precincts" and shall include the regulations
made therein for conservation of the same.
13. Approval of the Master Plan.- (1) On receipt of
the Master Plan with the reports referred to in section 12
from the Planning Authority under sub-section (1) of section
9, or after such plan and reports are prepared and
published under subsection (2) of section 9. the State
Government after making such modifications as it deems fit
or as may be advised by the Director, shall return through
the Director, the plan and the reports to the Planning
Authority, which shall thereupon publish, by notification, the
plan and the reports inviting public comments within sixty
days of such publication 2 [Simultaneously, the plan and
reports shall be forwarded to the local authorities within the
local planning area. which shall, within sixty days from the
date of receipt thereof. forward to the Planning Authority,
15
its approval or any observations to be considered by the
Authority, failing which the approval of the local authority
shall be deemed to have been given.
(2) If within sixty days of the publication under sub-
section (1), any member of the public communicates in
writing to the Planning Authority any comments on the plan
and the reports, the Planning authority shall consider such
comments and resubmit the plan and the reports to the
State Government, through the Director with
recommendations for such modifications in the plan and
reports as it considers necessary in the light of the public
comments made on the plan and reports.
(3) The State Government, after receiving the plan
and the reports and the recommendations for modifications
from the Planning Authority, shall, in consultation with the
Director, give its final approval to the plan and the reports
with such modifications as the Director may advice in the
light of the comments and the recommendations of the
Planning authority or otherwise.
(4) The Planning Authority shall then publish in the
prescribed manner the Master Plan and the reports as finally
approved by the State Government. The plan and the
reports shall be permanently displayed in the offices of the
Director and the Planning Authority and a copy shall be kept
available for inspection of the public at the office of the
Planning Authority.
13-A. Interim Master Plan. (1) Pending the
preparation of Master Plan, a Planning Authority may, where
it considers it expedient, and shall, when so directed by the
State Government, prepare and publish the Interim Master
Plan for the entire area within the jurisdiction of the
Planning Authority, or for any part thereof; and their upon,
the provisions of section 13 shall, so far as may be, but
subject to the provisions of this section, apply in relation to
such Interim Master Plan as they apply in relation to the
preparation and publication of the Master Plan.
(2) The Planning Authority shall prepare and publish
such plan not later than one year from the date of notice in
the official Gazette of its declaration of intention to prepare
a Master plan or not later than such further period not
exceeding one year as may be extended by the State
Government.
16
(3) The Interim Master Plan shall provide only for
matters mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 12
and if necessary, such other matters specified in that
section as the Planning Authority may decide to include or
as may be directed by the State Government.
(4) The Interim Master Plan shall consist of such
maps and such descriptive matters as the Planning
Authority may consider necessary to explain and illustrate
the proposals made in such plan."
(Emphasis added)
Therefore, it becomes an admitted fact that the BDA has reserved
the subject property for formation of a road. The final Master Plan
was notified on 29-01-2009 but comes into effect in the year 2007.
10. It is the case of the petitioners that on 12-10-2012 the
State Government had permitted minor adjustment that can be
effected relating to alignment of the road in the final Master Plan
and issued guidelines permitting such change with regard to
aligning of roads. The guidelines are in place. The petitioners then
enter into a joint development agreement to develop the property
into an apartment complex as it is measuring 2 acres 08 guntas.
They filed an application before the BDA for sanction of a building
licence for construction of building in accordance with the building
plan so submitted. It was for the purpose of construction of a
17
residential apartment. Requisite licence fee for the purpose of
sanction of plan was also paid.
11. On 06-04-2021, respondent No.2/BDA communicates to
the BBMP that in terms of RMP 2015 'B' schedule property which
forms part of building plan is shown as proposed road and therefore
the plan for construction of a residential complex cannot be
sanctioned. It is then the BBMP issues an endorsement on
22-04-2021 rejecting the application of the petitioners seeking
sanction of plan. However, the endorsement also notices that the
plan can be sanctioned only after shifting of the proposed road to
the extreme western side of 'A' schedule property. The
endorsement reads as follows:
".... .... ....
`ೕಲBಂಡ ಷಯ ೆB ಸಂಬಂ 4ದಂ ೆ, ಾವ! ಸದE ಸ‰Y5ನ/ ವಸY ಸಮುಚ•ಯ ಕಟ2ಡ
]Vಾ ಣ Vಾಡಲು ಉ ೇಖ (1) ರ ಪತ+ದಂ ೆ ನlೆ ಮಂಜೂ&ಾY ೋE ಈ ಕXೇE*ೆ ಮನ
ಸ/4ರುY5ೕE. ಈ ಬ*ೆŠ ಪEGೕ/ಸ ಾC, ಪEಷ‹ತ Vಾಸ2 ^ಾJ - 2015 ರ ಭೂ ಉಪeೕಗದ
ನlೆಯನ‰ಯ ಸದE ಸ‰Y5ನ ಮಧ7Kಾಗದ/ ಉ?ೆ@ೕGತ 18.00 :ೕ. ಅಗಲದ ರ8ೆ5ಯು "ಾದು "ೋCದು@,
ಅದರಂ ೆ ಸ‰Y5ನ/ ಉ?ೆ@ೕ4ತ 18.00 :ೕ. ಅಗಲದ ಉ?ೆ@ೕGತ ರ8ೆ5*ಾC Tಾಗವನು; ಾ_@E4
ನlೆಗಳನು; ಪEಷBE4 ಸ/ಸುವಂ ೆ ಉ ೇಖ (2) ರ ಪತ+ದಂ ೆ ಈ ಕXೇE_ಂದ LFಾಂಕ: 30-05-2020
ರಂದು qಂಬರಹ ]ೕಡ ಾCತು5. ಅದರಂ ೆ ಾವ! ಉ ೇಖ (3) ರ ಪತ+ದಂ ೆ LFಾಂಕ: 09-10-2020
ರಂದು ಮನ ಸ/4, ಮನ eಂL*ೆ ಸದE ಸ‰Y5ನ ಸ=ೆ ನಂ. 75 ರ ಸ‰Y5ನ Kಾಗಶಃ ಮಧ7Kಾಗದ/
ಇರುವ ಉ?ೆ@ೕGತ 18.00 :ೕ. ಅಗಲದ ರ8ೆ5ಯನು;, ಸದE ಸ=ೆ ನಂಬ ನ ಪG•ಮದ ಗR*ೆ ನlೆಯ/
18
ಗುರುY4ರುವಂ ೆ ಉಪeೕC4 ೊಳZ)ವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಉ ೇಖ (4) ರ ಪತ+ದನ‰ಯ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಅgವೃLh
^ಾ+ ಾರLಂದ ಸಂpೆ7: ೆಂಅ^ಾ+/ನeೕಸ/ಎಂಐಎP-426/335/2020-21, LFಾಂಕ: 24-09-2020
ರಂದು ]ೕRರುವ ಆ?ೇಶದ ಪ+Yಯನು; "ಾಗೂ ನlೆಯನು; ಸ/ಸು ಾ5, ಅದರಂ ೆ ಸದE ಸ‰Y5ನ/
]: ಸಲು ಉ?ೆ@ೕG4ರುವ ವಸY ಸಮುಚ•ಯ ಕಟ2ಡ ೆB ನlೆ ಮಂಜೂ&ಾY ]ೕಡುವಂ ೆ ೋEರುY5ೕE.
ಅದರಂ ೆ ಸದE ನlೆ ಮಂಜೂ&ಾY ಪ+8ಾ5ವFೆ*ೆ Vಾನ7 ಆಯುಕ5ರು ರವರು ಉ ೇಖ (5) ರಂ ೆ LFಾಂಕ:
28-01-2021 ರಂದು ಅನುmೕದFೆ ]ೕRರು ಾ5&ೆ. ಅದರನ‰ಯ ಉ ೇಖ (6) ರ ಶುಲB ^ಾವY YಳZವ% ೆ
ಪತ+ದಂ ೆ ಅಗತ7 ಶುಲBಗಳನು; ^ಾ/ ೆ*ೆ ^ಾವYಸುವಂ ೆ ಸದE ಸ‰Y5ನ/ ರ8ೆ5 ಅಗ/ೕಕರಣ ಾBC
ಾ_@E4ರುವ ಪ+?ೇಶವನು; ^ಾ/ ೆ*ೆ ಉŽತ=ಾC ಪE ಾ7ಜ7Fಾ ಪತ+ದ ಮುpಾಂತರ
ಹ8ಾ5ಂತE4ರುವ Fೊಂ?ಾ_ತ ಪ+Yಯನು; "ಾಗೂ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ]ೕರು ಸರಬ&ಾಜು ಮತು5 ಒಳಚರಂR
ಮಂಡ%_ಂದ ಪkೆLರುವ ]&ಾlೇಪjಾ ಪತ+ವನು; ಸ/ಸುವಂ ೆ Y%ಸ ಾCರುತ5?ೆ.
ಈ ಮ•ೆ7 ಸದE ಸ‰Y5ನ ಸ=ೆ ನಂ.
ನಂ 75 ರ ಸ‰Y5ನ Kಾಗಶಃ ಮಧ7Kಾಗದ/
ಮಧ7Kಾಗದ/ ಇರುವ ಉ?ೆ@ೕGತ
18:00 :ೕ.
:ೕ ಅಗಲದ ರ8ೆ5ಯನು;,
ನು; ಸದE ಸ=ೆ ನಂಬ ನ ಪG•ಮದ ಗR*ೆ ನlೆಯ/ ಗುರುY4ರುವಂ ೆ
ಉಪeೕC4 ೊಳZ)ವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಉ ೇಖ (4) ರ ಪತ+ದನ‰ಯ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಅgವೃLh ^ಾ+ ಾರLಂದ
ಸಂpೆ7:
ಸಂpೆ7 ೆಂಅ^ಾ+/ನeೕಸ
ೆಂಅ^ಾ+ ನeೕಸ/ಎಂಐಎP
ನeೕಸ ಎಂಐಎP-426/335/2020-21,
ಎಂಐಎP LFಾಂಕ:
LFಾಂಕ 24-09-2020 ರಂದು ]ೕRರುವ
]ೕRರುವ
ಆ?ೇಶ ಪತ+ದ Fೈಜ ೆಯ ಬ*ೆŠ ನಗರ eೕಜಕ ಸದಸ7ರು,
ಸದಸ7ರು ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಅgವೃLh ^ಾ+ ಾರ ರವರನು;
ಉ ೇಖ (7) ರ ಪತ+ದಂ ೆ ೋರ ಾCತು5.
ನಗರ eೕಜಕ ಸದಸ7ರು (ಪ), ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಅgವೃLh ^ಾ+ ಾರ ರವರು LFಾಂಕ: 06-04-
2021 ರಂದು ಈ ಕXೇE*ೆ ಉ ೇಖ (8) ರಂ ೆ ಪತ+ ಬ&ೆದು ಉ ೇಖ (4) ರ ಪತ+ವ!
ನಕ/dಾCರುವ!ದEಂದ ಸದE ಪತ+ದನ‰ಯ dಾವ!?ೇ ಅನುmೕದFೆ*ೆ ಪEಗaಸ ಾರ?ೆಂದು
Y%4ರು ಾ5&ೆ.
ಆದುದEಂದ ಾವ! ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಅgವೃLh ^ಾ+ ಾರದ ಉ ೇಖ (4) ರಂ ೆ ಸ/4ದ@
ಪತ+ದನ‰ಯ ಪEಗaಸ ಾCದ@ ಕಟ2ಡ ಮಂಜೂ&ಾY ನlೆಯ ಪ+8ಾ5ವFೆ*ೆ ಸಂಬಂ 4ದಂ ೆ ^ಾ+ ಾರವ!
ಉ ೇಖ (8) ರ/ ಉ ೇಖ (4) ರ ಪತ+ವ! ನಕ/ ಪತ+=ೆಂದು Y%4ರುವ!ದEಂದ ತಮ*ೆ ಕಟ2ಡ ನlೆ
ಮಂಜೂ&ಾY ]ೕಡಲು ರಹ ಇರುವ!Lಲ=ೆಂದು Y%ಸು ಾ5, ಕೂಡ ೇ ಸ‰Y5ನ/ ]Vಾ ಣದ
ಾಮ*ಾEಯನು; ಸuCತ*ೊ%ಸಲು ಸೂŽ4?ೆ. ಮುಂದುವ&ೆದಂ ೆ ಪEಷ‹ತ Vಾಸ2 ^ಾJ - 2015 ರ
ಭೂ ಉಪeೕಗದ ನlೆಯನ‰ಯ ಸ‰Y5ನ/ "ಾದು"ೋಗುವ ಉ?ೆ@ೕGತ 18.00 :ೕ ಅಗಲದ ರ8ೆ5ಯನು;
ಾ_@E4 ]ಯVಾವ%ಯನ‰ಯ ನlೆಗಳನು; ಪEಷBE4 ಸ/4ದ ನಂತರ ಕಟ2ಡ ಮಂಜೂ&ಾY ನlೆ
ಪ+8ಾ5ವFೆಯನು; ]ಯVಾನು8ಾರ ಪEGೕ/4 ಮುಂLನ ಕ+ಮ ವqಸ ಾಗುವ!?ೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮ*ೆ
Y%ಸ ಾC?ೆ.
19
¸À»/-
ಜಂi ]?ೇ ಶಕರು (ನಗರ eೕಜFೆ - ಉತ5ರ)
ಬೃಹ• ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಮ"ಾನಗರ ^ಾ/ ೆ."
(Emphasis added)
The petitioners then approach this Court challenging the said
endorsement only to be withdrawn later, to pursue the remedy
under the Act. Shifting of the road was then sought by filing an
application under Section 14A of the Act. The application was not
considered. Therefore, the petitioners were before this Court in Writ
Petition No.353 of 2022. During the pendency of the said writ
petition, an endorsement rejecting the claim was issued and the
writ petition comes to be disposed of by the following order:
"ORDER
This petition is structured on the following prayers:
"a) a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to
shift the proposed road measuring 18.00 meters from the
middle of the western side of the property to the extreme
western side of the schedule property by considering the
representation made by the petitioners on 26.11.2021 at
Annexure-W.
b) a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.3 to
approve the building plan with respect to residential
apartment being constructed over land bearing present
BBMP Katha No.2430/75, converted Land bearing Sy.No.75
measuring 01 acres 36 gunta, situated at Rachenahalli
Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.
20
2. After service of notice the answering respondent
having entered appearance submits that the petition has
become infructuous in view of issuance of endorsement dated
08.03.2022, a copy whereof is at Annexure R-1 to the
Statement of Objections. He is justified in making this
submission.
3. In view of the above, a fresh cause of action having
been accrued, this petition does not survive for consideration
and therefore accordingly is disposed off reserving liberty to the
petitioner to lay a challenge to the subject endorsement in
accordance with law. All contentions are kept open to both the
sides."
The endorsement that is now challenged is as follows:
"ಇವE*ೆ,
G+ೕ.ಅಂ'ೋ] &ಾಜು HJ ೇo &ಾಯಪI ಮY5ತರರು,
&ಾ'ೇನಹ%) *ಾ+ಮ, ೆ.ಆ .ಪ!ರ "ೋಬ%,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು -560 077.
Vಾನ7&ೆ,
ಷಯ: ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಪ ವ ಾಲೂಕು, ೆ.ಆ .ಪ!ರ "ೋಬ%, &ಾ'ೇನಹ%)
*ಾ+ಮದ ಸ=ೆ ನಂ.75 ರ ^ೈ€ ಮತು5 76 ರ ^ೈ€ ಪ+8ಾ5zತ 18.0:ೕ
ಅಗಲದ ರ8ೆ5*ಾC ಾ_@E4ರುವ 453.22 ಚ.:ೕ 45ೕಣ ದ
ಪ+?ೇಶವನು; ರ8ೆ5 ಉಪeೕಗLಂದ ವಸY ಉಪeೕಗ ೆB
ಭೂಉಪeೕಗ ಬದ ಾವjೆ*ಾC ೋEರುವ ಬ*ೆŠ.
ಉ ೇಖ: 1) ತಮ' ಪತ+ "ಾಗೂ ಭೂಉಪeೕಗ ಬದ ಾವjೆ ಅ LFಾಂಕ:
26.11.2021.
2) Vಾನ7 ಉಚ• Fಾ7dಾಲಯದ W.P No.12506/2021 ರ ಆ?ೇಶ
LFಾಂಕ 21.09.2021.
3) ಸ ಾ ರದ ಭೂಉಪeೕಗ ಬದ ಾವjೆಯ Vಾಗ ಸೂŽ (*ೈ"
21
ೈJ") ಆ?ೇಶ ¸ÀASÉå: UDD 165 BMR 2012,
LFಾಂಕ 12/10/2012.
***
`ೕ/ನ ಷಯ ೆB ಸಂಬಂ 4ದಂ ೆ, ಉ ೇಖ (1) ರ/ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಪ ವ ಾಲೂಕು,
ೆ.ಆ .ಪ!ರ "ೋಬ%, &ಾ'ೇನಹ%) *ಾ+ಮದ ಸ=ೆ ನಂ.75 ರ ^ೈ€ ಮತು5 76 ರ ^ೈ€ ಪ+8ಾ5zತ
18.0:ೕ ಅಗಲದ ರ8ೆ5*ಾC ಾ_@E4ರುವ 453.22 ಚ.:ೕ 45ೕಣ ದ ಪ+?ೇಶವನು; ರ8ೆ5
ಉಪeೕಗLಂದ ವಸY ಉಪeೕಗ ೆB ಭೂಉಪeೕಗ ಬದ ಾವjೆ ೋEರುವ ಬ*ೆŠ
ಪEGೕ/ಸ ಾ_ತು.
ಸ ಾ ರLಂದ LFಾಂಕ 25/06/2007 ರಂದು ಅನುmೕದFೆ*ೊಂಡ RMP-2015 ರಂ ೆ
&ಾ'ೇನಹ%) *ಾ+ಮದ ಸ=ೆ ನಂ.75 ಮತು5 76 ರ ಪ+?ೇಶವ! Kಾಗಶ:=ಾC ವಸY ವಲಯದ/ ಉ?ೆ@ೕGತ
18.0:ೕ ಅಗಲದ ರ8ೆ5 ಇರುತ5?ೆ. ಈ ^ೈ€ ಉ?ೆ@ೕGತ ರ8ೆ5*ಾC ಾ_@E4ರುವ 453.22 ಚ.:ೕ
45ೕಣ ದ ಪ+?ೇಶವನು; ಕFಾ ಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತು5 *ಾ+Vಾಂತರ eೕಜFಾ ಾ<@ 1961 ರ ಕಲಂ 14-ಎ
ರRಯ/ ರ8ೆ5 ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶLಂದ ವಸY ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶ ಾBC ಪ+8ಾ5ವFೆಯನು; ಸ/ಸ ಾCರುತ5?ೆ.
ಉ ೇಖ (2) ರ Vಾನ7 ಉಚ• Fಾ7dಾಲಯದ W.P No.12506/2021(BDA) ರ ಆ?ೇಶ
LFಾಂಕ 21.09.2021 ರ ಆ?ೇಶದ/ G+ೕ.ಅಂ'ೋ] &ಾಜು HJ ೇo &ಾಯಪI ಮY5ತರರು,
(=ಾLಗಳZ) Vಾನ7 Fಾ7dಾಲಯದ/ ?ಾ=ೆಯನು; qಂಪkೆಯ ಾCರುವ ಾರಣ ಾ<@ಯನ‰ಯ ಸfಮ
^ಾ+ ಾರ ೆB ಸೂಕ5=ಾC ಮನ ಯನು; ಸ/ಸುವಂ ೆ Y%4 ?ಾ=ೆಯನು; ವTಾ Vಾಡ ಾCರುತ5?ೆ.
ಉ ೇಖ (3)ರ/ ಸ ಾ ರದ ಕFಾ ಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತು5 *ಾ+Vಾಂತರ eೕಜFಾ ಾ<@ 1961 ರ
ಕಲಂ 14-ಎ ರRಯ/ ೈ*ೊಳ)ಬಹು?ಾದ ಪ+8ಾ5ವFೆಗಳ ಕುEತು Vಾಗ ಸೂŽ (*ೈ" ೈJ) ಯನು;
ಆ?ೇಶ ¸ÀASÉå : UDD 165 BMR 2012, LFಾಂಕ 12/10/2012 gÀ°è£À PÀArPÉ (B) General
Instruction G¥À ಕಂR ೆ 16 (H) ರ/ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡಂ ೆ ಉ ೇ•ಸ ಾC?ೆ.
16. Changes of land use proposals shall not be
submitted to the Government under the following
circumstances:
b. Lands coming in the alignment of existing /
proposed road of master plan ಎಂದು ಉ ೇ•4?ೆ.
`ೕ ೆ ]ೕಡ ಾCರುವ ಭೂಉಪeೕಗ ಬದ ಾವjೆ*ೆ ]ೕಡ ಾದ Vಾಗ ಸೂŽಯ/
ಸ ಾ ರವ! ಸIಷ-=ಾC ಇಂತಹ ಪ+8ಾ5ವFೆಗಳನು; ಪEಗaಸ ಾರ?ೆಂದು ಆ?ೇG4ರುತ5?ೆ.
22
ಮುಂದುವ&ೆದು ಕFಾ ಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತು5 *ಾ+Vಾಂತರ eೕಜFಾ ಾ<@ 1961 ರ ಕಲಂ 69/2
(b) ಮತು5 12(b) ರRಯ/ಯೂ ಸಹ 8ಾವ ಜ]ಕ ಸ‰ ೆ5ಂದು ಗುರುY4ರುವ ಪ+?ೇಶಗಳZ ಮೂಲ
8ೌಕಯ ಗಳFಾ;C 8ಾವ ಜ]ಕ ಉಪeೕಗ ಾBC ಬರುವಂತಹ ಪ+?ೇಶಗ%*ೆ dಾವ!?ೇ ಬದ ಾವjೆ
Vಾಡಲು ಅವ ಾಶ ರುವ!Lಲ.
`ೕಲBಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳ qFೆ; ೆಯ/ ]ೕವ! ೋEರುವ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಪ ವ ಾಲೂಕು, ೆ.ಆ
.ಪ!ರ "ೋಬ%, &ಾ'ೇನಹ%) *ಾ+ಮದ ಸ=ೆ ನಂ.75 ರ ^ೈ€ ಮತು5 76 ರ ^ೈ€ ಪ+8ಾ5zತ 18.0:ೕ
ಅಗಲದ ರ8ೆ5*ಾC ಾ_@E4ರುವ 453.22 ಚ.:ೕ 45ೕಣ ದ ಪ+?ೇಶವನು; ರ8ೆ5 ಉಪeೕಗLಂದ ವಸY
ಉಪeೕಗ ಾBC ಾ<@ಯನ‰ಯ ಭೂಉಪeೕಗ ಬದ ಾವjೆ ಪ+8ಾ5ವFೆಯನು; ಪEಗaಸಲು
ಅವ ಾಶ ಲLರುವ ಾರಣ ಉ ೇಖ (1) ರ/ ಸ/4ರುವ ಪ+8ಾ5ವFೆಯನು; YರಸBEಸ ಾC?ೆ ಎಂಬ
ಅಂಶವನು; ಈ ಮೂಲಕ Y%ಯಪRಸ ಾC?ೆ.
(ಕರಡು ಪತ+ವ! ನ.eೕ.ಸ ರವEಂದ ಅನುmೕLಸಲIi2?ೆ
ತಮ' ...ಾ‰4
¸À»/-08/03/2022
ನಗರ eೕಜಕ ಸದಸ7ರುರವರ ಪರ=ಾC
ೆಂಅ^ಾ+, ೆಂಗಳ ರು."
What is discernible from the communication of the BDA and the
BBMP is that the request can be considered if the road is shifted to
the extreme western side of 'A' schedule property. Therefore, it is a
case where it is shiftable.
12. It now becomes necessary to notice the statutory frame
work and the interpretation of the statutory frame work. This Court
23
considered the entire spectrum of law in Writ Petition No.50462
of 2019 disposed on 02-06-2023 holding as follows:
".... .... ....
15. In the light of the aforesaid facts and mandate of the
statute, reference being made to the judgments rendered by
this Court, on the issue, both by the Division Bench and that of
the learned single Judge becomes apposite. The Division Bench
in the case of BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. Y.
BAYAPPA REDDY (supra) has held as follows:
"12. Section 69(2) of the Karnataka Town and
Country Planning Act, 1961 makes it very clear that in
the matter of construction of road, the proceedings
will not at all lapse even if the period of five years is
over and therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the learned single Judge could not have passed
an order holding that the writ petitioner is entitled to
proceed with the development of his site. Resultantly,
this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by
the learned single Judge in Review Petition Nos. 68 of
2016 and 83-88 of 216 deserves to be set aside and
accordingly, the same is set aside."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Division Bench after quoting and noticing Section 12
and its purport and Section 69 and its purport has held
that the lands held by the Planning Authority in terms of
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act
would not lapse. Much earlier to the judgment rendered by the
Division Bench, a learned single Judge of this Court in the case
of VIDYA VIKAS EDUCATIONAL TRUST (supra) has held as
follows:
"7. S. 12 of the Karnataka Town and Country
Planning Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") specifies the
contents of master plan and the same reads as under:
"12. Contents of Master Plan : (1) The Master Plan
shall consist of a series of maps and documents indicating
24
the manner in which the development and improvement of
the entire planning area within the jurisdiction of the
Planning Authority are to be carried out and regulated, such
plan shall include proposals for the following namely,--
a. Zoning of land use for residential, commercial,
industrial, agricultural, recreational, educational and
other purposes together with Zoning Regulations;
b. A complete street pattern, indicating major and
minor roads, national highways, and state highways,
and traffic circulation pattern, for meeting immediate
and future requirements with proposals for
improvements;
c. areas reserved for parks, playgrounds, and other
recreational uses, public open spaces, public
buildings and institutions and area reserved for such
other purposes as may be expedient for new civic
developments;
d. areas earmarked for future development and
expansion;
e. xxx
f. xxx
g. xxx
By Act No. 1 of 2005 S. 69 came to be substituted
with effect from 14-2-2005 by new Section as under:
"69. Acquisition of land designated for
certain purposes in a Master Plan: (1) The
Planning Authority may acquire any land designated
in a Master Plan for specified purpose in clause (b),
(c) or (d) of sub section(1) of section 12, or for any
public purpose out of those specified land in clause
(a) of sub-section(1) of section 12 by agreement or
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (Central Act I
of 1894) as in force in the State. If the land is
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the
provisions of said Act as amended by S. 72 of the
Act shall apply to the determination of compensation
for the acquisition of such land.
(2) If the designated land, except land
specified for the purpose in clause (b) of sub-
section(1) of section 12, is not acquired by
agreement within five years from the date, the
25
Master Plan is published in the gazette under sub-
section(4) of section 13 or if the proceedings under
the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced within
such period the designation shall be deemed to have
been lapsed."
8. A reading of the above Section specifies
that the lands designated for the purpose of major
and minor roads, national high ways, state high
ways etc., shall not be lapsed even if they are not
acquired within the stipulated time of 5 years from
the date of publication of master plan. in the instant
case in the master plan the lands in question are
designated for the purpose of roads. Therefore even
if the lands in question are not acquired, the
designation of lands as roads will not lapse.
Therefore the respondents are well within their
power insisting on the petitioner to leave the road
under the impugned endorsement.
9. Petitioner contends that it has given a
representation on 15-12-2008 as per Annexure L to
third respondent requesting to make necessary
changes in the comprehensive development plan
and to delete the designated road in the property of
the petitioner. Again on 4-2-2009 the petitioner
gave a reminder as per Annexure L-1. Even to this
day third respondent has not considered the
request of the petitioner as per Annexure L and L1.
It is obligatory on the part of third respondent to
consider the request of the petitioner."
(Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, in the light of the mandate of law and its
interpretation by the Division Bench and the learned single
Judge of this Court, the petitioners have not made out a case of
demonstrable right, to remedy their grievance, by issuance of a
mandamus at the hands of this Court, 35 as the action of the
Planning Authority is permitted in law and the redressal of the
grievance of the petitioners, for now is prohibited in law."
(Emphasis supplied)
26
Learned Counsel for the BDA has placed heavy reliance upon the
judgment rendered by this Court which was in fact following the
judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.2679 of 2018
decided on 10-03-2021. The Division Bench had clearly held that
once reserved for public purpose it must not be open to consider
any change of land use or acquisition can be called in question.
13. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has
contended that right to property as obtaining under Section 300-A
of the Constitution is put to jeopardy. It is an admitted fact that for
the last 18 years the BDA is holding the property for the proposed
road. There is no proposal placed before this Court. The proposal is
yet to emerge is an admitted fact. Therefore, it is ununderstandable
as to how long the BDA could hold the property of a private citizen,
on the specious plea of an emerging proposal in future.
14. It becomes necessary to notice certain judgments of the
Apex Court emphasizing right to property.
27
14.1. The Apex Court in the case of HINDUSTAN
PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED v. DARIUS SHAPUR
CHENAI1, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
6. It is not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a
valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to
be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in
Article 300-A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of
its power of "eminent domain" may interfere with the
right of property of a person by acquiring the same but
the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable
compensation therefor must be paid.
... ... ...
9. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be
an effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of
opinion as regards the public purpose as also suitability
thereof must be preceded by application of mind as
regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of
irrelevant ones. The State in its decision-making process
must not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not in
dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable
important right and having regard to the provisions
contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution it has been
held to be akin to a fundamental right."
(Emphasis supplied)
14.2. Again, the Apex Court in the case of TUKARAM KANA
JOSHI v. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION2, holds as follows:
1
(2005) 7 SCC 627
28
".... .... ....
17. Depriving the appellants of their immovable
properties was a clear violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution. In a welfare State, statutory authorities are
bound, not only to pay adequate compensation, but there
is also a legal obligation upon them to rehabilitate such
persons. The non-fulfilment of their obligations would
tantamount to forcing the said uprooted persons to
become vagabonds or to indulge in anti-national activities
as such sentiments would be born in them on account of
such ill-treatment. Therefore, it is not permissible for any
welfare State to uproot a person and deprive him of his
fundamental/constitutional/human rights, under the
garb of industrial development."
(Emphasis supplied)
In both the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court holds that
depriving a person of immovable property is violation of Article 21
of the Constitution of India. Though these cases were concerning
payment of compensation, right to property was held to be a
constitutional right.
14.3. The Apex Court in the case of KOLKATA MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION v. BIMAL KUMAR SHAH3, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
30. What then are these sub-rights or strands of this
swadeshi constitutional fabric constituting the right to property?
2
(2013) 1 SCC 353
3
(2024) 10 SCC 533
29
Seven such sub-rights can be identified, albeit non-exhaustive.
These are:
(i) The duty of the State to inform the person that it
intends to acquire his property -- the right to
notice,
(ii) The duty of the State to hear objections to the
acquisition -- the right to be heard,
(iii) The duty of the State to inform the person of its
decision to acquire -- the right to a reasoned
decision,
(vi) The duty of the State to demonstrate that the
acquisition is for public purpose -- the duty to
acquire only for public purpose,
(v) The duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate
--the right of restitution or fair compensation,
(vi) The duty of the State to conduct the process
of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed
timelines of the proceedings -- the right to an
efficient and expeditious process, and
(vii) The final conclusion of the proceedings
leading to vesting -- the right of conclusion.
31. These seven rights are foundational components of a
law that is tune with Article 300-A, and the absence of one of
these or some of them would render the law susceptible to
challenge. The judgment of this Court in K.T.
Plantation declares that the law envisaged under Article
300-A must be in line with the overarching principles of
rule of law, and must be just, fair, and reasonable. It is, of
course, precedentially sound to describe some of these sub-
rights as "procedural", a nomenclature that often tends to
undermine the inherent worth of these safeguards. These seven
sub-rights may be procedures, but they do constitute the real
content of the right to property under Article 300-A, non-
compliance of these will amount to violation of the right, being
without the authority of law.
30
...
33. Following are the seven principles:
33.1.The Right to notice
33.1.1. A prior notice informing the bearer of the right
that the State intends to deprive them of the right to property is
a right in itself; a linear extension of the right to know
embedded in Article 19(1)(a). The Constitution does not
contemplate acquisition by ambush. The notice to acquire must
be clear, cogent and meaningful. Some of the statutes reflect
this right.
33.1.2. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
Section 3(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable
Property Act, 1952, Section 11 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Section 3-A of
the National Highways Act, 1956 are examples of such statutory
incorporation of the right to notice before initiation of the land
acquisition proceedings.
33.1.3. In a large number of decisions, our constitutional
courts have independently recognised the right to notice before
any process of acquisition is commenced.
33.2.The Right to be heard
33.2.1. Following the right to a meaningful and effective
prior notice of acquisition, is the right of the property-bearer to
communicate his objections and concerns to the authority
acquiring the property. This right to be heard against the
proposed acquisition must be meaningful and not a sham.
33.2.2. Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
Section 3(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable
Property Act, 1952, Section 15 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Section 3-C of
the National Highways Act, 1956, are some statutory
embodiments of this right.
31
33.2.3. Judicial opinions recognising the importance of
this right are far too many to reproduce. Suffice it to say that
that the enquiry in which a landholder would raise his objection
is not a mere formality.
33.3.The Right to a reasoned decision
33.3.1. That the authorities have heard and
considered the objections is evidenced only through a
reasoned order. It is incumbent upon the authority to
take an informed decision and communicate the same to
the objector.
33.3.2. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
Section 3(2) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable
Property Act, 1952, Section 19 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Section 3-D of
the National Highways Act, 1956, are the statutory
incorporations of this principle.
33.3.3. Highlighting the importance of the
declaration of the decision to acquire, the Courts have
held that the declaration is mandatory, failing which, the
acquisition proceedings will cease to have effect.
33.4.The Duty to acquire only for public purpose
33.4.1. That the acquisition must be for a public purpose
is inherent and an important fetter on the discretion of the
authorities to acquire. This requirement, which conditions the
purpose of acquisition must stand to reason with the larger
constitutional goals of a welfare State and distributive justice.
33.4.2. Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, Sections 3(1) and 7(1) of the Requisitioning and
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Sections 2(1),
11(1), 15(1)(b) and 19(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 and Section 3-A(1) of the National
Highways Act, 1956 depict the statutory incorporation of the
public purpose requirement of compulsory acquisition.
32
33.4.3. The decision of compulsory acquisition of land is
subject to judicial review and the Court will examine and
determine whether the acquisition is related to public purpose.
If the Court arrives at a conclusion that that there is no public
purpose involved in the acquisition, the entire process can be
set aside. This Court has time and again reiterated the
importance of the underlying objective of acquisition of land by
the State to be for a public purpose.
33.5.The Right of restitution or fair compensation
33.5.1. A person's right to hold and enjoy property is an
integral part to the constitutional right under Article 300-A.
Deprivation or extinguishment of that right is permissible only
upon restitution, be it in the form of monetary compensation,
rehabilitation or other similar means. Compensation has always
been considered to be an integral part of the process of
acquisition.
33.5.2. Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
Sections 8 and 9 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 23 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Sections 3-G
and 3-H of the National Highways Act, 1956 are the statutory
incorporations of the right to restitute a person whose land has
been compulsorily acquired.
33.5.3. Our courts have not only considered that
compensation is necessary, but have also held that a fair and
reasonable compensation is the sine qua non for any acquisition
process.
33.6.The Right to an efficient and expeditious
process
33.6.1. The acquisition process is traumatic for
more than one reason. The administrative delays in
identifying the land, conducting the enquiry and
evaluating the objections, leading to a final declaration,
consume time and energy. Further, passing of the award,
payment of compensation and taking over the possession
are equally time-consuming. It is necessary for the
33
administration to be efficient in concluding the process
and within a reasonable time. This obligation must
necessarily form part of Article 300-A.
33.6.2. Sections 5-A(1), 6, 11-A and 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 6(1-A) and 9 of the
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952,
Sections 4(2), 7(4), 7(5), 11(5), 14, 15(1), 16(1), 19(2), 25,
38(1), 60(4), 64 and 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 and Sections 3-C(1), 3-D(3) and 3-E(1)
of the National Highways Act, 1956, prescribe for statutory
frameworks for the completion of individual steps in the process
of acquisition of land within stipulated timelines.
33.6.3. On multiple occasions, upon failure to adhere to
the timelines specified in law, the courts have set aside the
acquisition proceedings.
33.7.The Right of conclusion
33.7.1. Upon conclusion of process of acquisition
and payment of compensation, the State
takes possession of the property in normal
circumstances. The culmination of an acquisition process
is not in the payment of compensation, but also in taking
over the actual physical possession of the land. If
possession is not taken, acquisition is not complete. With
the taking over of actual possession after the normal
procedures of acquisition, the private holding is divested
and the right, title and interest in the property, along
with possession is vested in the State. Without final
vesting, the State's, or its beneficiary's right, title and
interest in the property is inconclusive and causes lot of
difficulties. The obligation to conclude and complete the
process of acquisition is also part of Article 300-A.
33.7.2. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
Sections 4 and 5 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immovable Property Act, 1952, Sections 37 and 38 of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Sections 3-D
34
and 3-E of the National Highways Act, 1956, statutorily
recognise this right of the acquirer.
33.7.3. This step of taking over of possession has
been a matter of great judicial scrutiny and this Court has
endeavoured to construe the relevant provisions in a way
which ensures non-arbitrariness in this action of the
acquirer. For that matter, after taking over possession, the
process of land acquisition concludes with the vesting of the
land with the authority concerned. The culmination of an
acquisition process by vesting has been a matter of great
importance. On this aspect, the courts have given a large
number of decisions as to the time, method and manner by
which vesting takes place."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in BIMAL KUMAR SHAH considers the concept of
acquisition of land and holds that it is the duty of the State to
conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed
timeline. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in BIMAL
KUMAR SHAH, the emphasis is cemented insofar as right to
immovable property of the person is concerned.
15. The respondents/BDA is holding on the right it has under
the Act, in terms of Section 69. Section 69 of the Act reads as
follows:
"69. Acquisition of land designated for certain
purposes in a Master Plan.- (1) The Planning Authority may
35
acquire any land designated in a Master Plan for a specified
purpose in clause (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) of section 12,
or for any public purpose out of those specified land in clause
(a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 by agreement or under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) as in force in
the State. If the land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, the provisions of said Act as amended by section 72 of
this Act shall apply to the determination of compensation for the
acquisition of such land.
(2) If the designated land, except land specified for
the purpose in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12,
is not acquired by agreement within five years from the
date, the Master Plan is published in the gazette under
sub-section (4) of section 13 or if the proceedings under
Land Acquisition Act are not commenced within such
period the designation shall be deemed to have been
lapsed."
(Emphasis supplied)
Sub-section (2) of Section 69 holds that when a designated land is
not acquired within five years from the date on which the Master
Plan is published in the Gazette or if the proceedings under the
Land Acquisition Act are not commenced, the designation of such
land is deemed to have lapsed. This is the first part of Section
69(2). The second part deals with an exception that is carved out
where the lands are earmarked for the purpose enumerated under
Section 12(1)(b) of the Act. Section 12(1)(b) of the Act reads as
follows:
36
"12. Contents of Master Plan.- (1) The Master Plan
shall consist of a series of maps and documents
indicating the manner in which the development and
improvement of the entire planning area within the
jurisdiction of the Planning Authority are to be carried
out and regulated, such plan shall include proposals for
the following, namely:-
... ... ...
(b) a complete street pattern, indicating major and
minor roads, national highways, and state highways, and
traffic circulation pattern, for meeting immediate and
future requirements with proposals for improvements;"
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 12(1)(b) deals with contents of a Master Plan. The
proposals are with regard to major and minor roads, national and
state highways and traffic circulation pattern for immediate and
future requirements with proposals for improvements. This is the
exception that the BDA hinges upon for holding the land for a
period of 18 years for the proposed road.
16. Though the mandate of Section 69(2) is considered by
this Court, there is a change in judicial thought by the judgment
rendered by the coordinate Bench, after the judgment rendered by
this Court quoted supra. A coordinate Bench in the case of
37
MALLESH REDDY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA4, has held as
follows:
".... .... ....
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, when a party
approaches this Court pointing out to such colourable exercise
of power in as much as the power to designate private lands for
public purpose being over and over again earmarked for such
purposes in succeeding master plans it should be held that the
authority is abusing its powers. Having regard to the facts
obtained in the present case, it is clear that at the first instance
when the petitioner made an application in the year 2010, the
application was rejected on the same ground that the then
Anekal Planning Authority, in its master plan had earmarked a
part of the land for formation of STRR. It is thus clear that the
earmarking of the land in question for formation of STRR
commenced even prior to the year 2005 and it was crystallized
by issuance of a notification at the instance of Bangalore Metro
Rail (BMR) and notification of interim master plan by order
dated 21.09.2005. This Court should take note of such facts and
the predicament of the persons like the petitioners. If a land is
earmarked and designated for such public purpose for
decades together as in the present case for nearly 20
years, having regard to the fact that the designation was
first made on 21.09.2005 and continuous till date, the
owners of the land will be deprived of opportunity to put
the land to beneficial use. This is the reason why this
Court is of the considered opinion that if in the master
plan there is a repetition of the designation and
earmarking of private lands for public purpose, it would
amount to colourable exercise of power. The exception
carved out under sub section (2) of Section 69 cannot be
misused by the State and the Planning authority in
repeating the designation of land in every successive
master plan. The intention of the legislature in carving
out an exception in cases of formation of roads, when
compared to park and open spaces as provided in sub-
section (2) of Section 69 is to give a little bit of leeway to
4
W.P.No.8455 of 2023 decided on 04-03-2024
38
the State and the planning authority to acquire or
purchase the land having regard to the fact and inevitable
circumstances where the alignment of the roads cannot
be altered. Nevertheless, it would be unacceptable that
State and the Planning Authority may take advantage of
such exception carved out in sub section (2) of Section 69
and go on earmarking or designating private lands for
public use in successive master plan and prevent the land
owners from the beneficial use of the properties for
decades together. The rights guaranteed by the
constitution under Article 300A of the Constitution of
India has also been noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in various such cases including the LAXMIKANTH
(supra) and therefore it was held that once an embargo
has been put on a landowner not to use the land in a
particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept
open-ended for indefinite period.
.... .... ....
12. This court has also taken note of the fact that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed in the case of
LAXMIKANTH (supra) that it would be impermissible for
the courts to direct the State to acquire any piece of land.
However, that should not prevent the Deputy
Commissioner from getting the requisite information as
to the extent of land that may be required for formation
of STRR and proceed to pass orders for conversion of the
remaining extent of land.
13. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of
with a specific direction to the 2nd respondent - Deputy
Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District that he shall forthwith
call for all the relevant information from the planning authority
as to the extent of land that may be required for formation of
the STRR on the land in question. Thereafter, the Deputy
Commissioner shall proceed to pass necessary orders for
conversion in respect of the remaining extent of land. The entire
exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at
any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of copy of this order."
(Emphasis supplied)
39
The coordinate Bench observes that all that the exception carved
out for formation of road would not lapse qua designation of land
sought to be acquired by the Planning Authority, but the land owner
cannot be deprived of the right of usage for decades. The
coordinate Bench also opines that once an embargo is put on the
land owner not to use the land in a particular manner, it cannot be
for an indefinite period.
17. It is no doubt true that the land belonging to the
petitioners has been shown as a proposed road in the Master Plan
2015 which came in to effect in the year 2007 and for 18 years not
a drop of ink has fallen on any proposal of the BDA as to how the
road would be formed. The sketch is appended to the petition. In
the sketch, as obtaining in the Master Plan, no doubt the road
passes through the property. The proposal is submitted by the
petitioners for shifting of the road to the extreme western side of 'A'
schedule property. It is also a fact that buildings have come up all
around the proposed road. It is locked by buildings and the
petitioners' property stands in between. The learned senior counsel
Sri Udaya Holla has also taken this Court through the Master Plan
40
and the sketch to demonstrate that the road can be shifted to the
other area as is sought. In that event, right to property by the
petitioner would not be deprived.
18. In the light of the judgment of the coordinate Bench, I
deem it appropriate to direct the BDA to consider the application of
the petitioner after determination as to which portion of the
petitioners' land is required for formation of road, as the BDA does
not have a plan as on date as to which portion of the land is
required and if it is feasible to shift the road, the BDA shall also
consider the same, owing to the circumstance of impossibility of
formation of road as projected by the petitioners. Therefore, the
observations of the Apex Court with regard to right to immovable
property of the citizen under Article 300-A of the Constitution would
not be rendered illusory.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) Endorsement dated 08-03-2022 issued by the 4th
respondent/BDA stands quashed.
(iii) The application of the petitioners dated 17-07-2019
shall be considered and necessary orders be passed in
accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations
made in the course of the order, all in an outer limit of
12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
