Karnataka High Court
M/S Virginia Developers Private ... vs State Of Karnataka on 9 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:35813
WP No. 10536 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 10536 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
M/S VIRGINIA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT,
NO.2981, 4TH FLOOR, 12TH MAIN,
HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560008.
REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
MR. DHARMARAJ T.,
S/O MR. S. THIRUNAVUKKARASU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
Digitally signed by
BENGALURU-560001.
AL BHAGYA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HUDSON CIRCLE, N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002.
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
HUDSON CIRCLE N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:35813
WP No. 10536 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (NORTH)
TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
HUDSON CIRCLE, N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002.
5. KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED,
SAMPARKA SOUDHA, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010.
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR .
6. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, OPP ORION MALL,
DR. RAJAKUMAR ROAD,
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. K.B.MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
SRI. VIJAY KUMAR V.B., ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) DIRECTION
DIRECTING THAT THE ACTION OF BBMP-R2 TO 4 IN IMPOSING
A REQUIREMENT TO RELINQUISH THE PROPERTY BELONGING
TO THE PETITIONER DESIGNED FOR ROAD WIDENING IN THE
MASTER PLAN FREE OF COST WITH THE RESPONDENT -BBMP
AS A PRECONDITION FOR ISSUANCE OF THE OCCUPANCY
CERTIFICATE / SANCTIONING OF THE BUILDING PLAN IS
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A DECLARATION HOLDING THE
DEED OF RELINQUISHMENT DTD. 09/06/2016 ISSUED BY THE
PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-P IS VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE
AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT
AUTHORITIES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:35813
WP No. 10536 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
" i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ or order or direction
declaring that the action of BBMP-Respondents
No.2 to No.4 in imposing a requirement to
relinquish the property belonging to the petitioner
designed for road widening in the Master Plan free
of cost with the respondent - BBMP as a
precondition for issuance of the Occupancy
Certificate/sanctioning of the Building Plan is
violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India
and consequently issue a declaration holding the
Deed of Relinquishment Dated: 09/06/2016 issued
by the petitioner vide Annexure-P as null & void,
and unenforceable against the petitioner by the
respondent authorities; and
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or
any other writ or order or direction, directing the
respondents to follow due process of law under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
NC: 2025:KHC:35813
HC-KAR
Act, 2013 by initiating acquisition proceedings and
by paying compensation/TDR, if the respondent
authorities intend to use any portion of the property
belonging to the petitioner which are earmarked for
the purpose of road widening in the Revised Master
Plan 2015; and
iii. Pass such other order or orders as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit, proper, necessary and
expedient in the circumstance of the case."
2. The petitioner-company asserts that it is
engaged in the business of development works in India
and is the owner of property bearing Katha
No.948/639/10/11/12/1. The material facts are largely
undisputed. The petitioner, being the owner of the said
land, submitted an application seeking approval of a
sanction plan for construction of a commercial complex.
The Planning Authority, by order dated 20.04.2012,
accorded approval to the plan subject to standard
conditions, including reservation of certain areas for roads.
NC: 2025:KHC:35813
HC-KAR
3. On 09.06.2016, the petitioner executed a
registered relinquishment deed whereby the title in the
portion of the land earmarked for road widening was
conveyed to respondent No.2 - Planning Authority, free of
cost and without any claim for compensation. Consequent
upon such relinquishment, the Planning Authority issued a
sanction plan permitting the petitioner to proceed with
construction of a commercial complex. The petitioner
further asserts that it had sought modification of the plan,
which came to be considered by the BBMP, and the
Planning Authority, accordingly, issued a modified sanction
plan-cum-occupancy certificate on 02.03.2015. The
modified plan-cum-occupancy certificate is produced at
Annexure-G.
4. The petitioner, having executed the
relinquishment deed (which fact is not in dispute),
submitted an application under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 seeking information regarding the
commencement of road widening work. The authorities, in
NC: 2025:KHC:35813
HC-KAR
response, indicated that no proposal for road widening had
been undertaken between Marathalli and Varthur Kodi
Junction up to Hope Farm, except for the proposed
construction of an underpass at Kundalahalli Junction.
5. The petitioner contends that in view of the
endorsement issued by the BBMP indicating that road
widening over the subject property had been given up, it
made several representations requesting the BBMP as well
as respondent No.5 - Karnataka Road Development
Corporation Limited (KRDCL) to initiate acquisition
proceedings for the land required for construction of the
grade separator. It is asserted that the petitioner
continues to remain in exclusive possession of the
property which had been earmarked for road widening
under the RMP 2015, as reflected in the approved plan
dated 20.04.2012.
6. The petitioner, in the present writ petition,
submits that despite the subject property being earmarked
NC: 2025:KHC:35813
HC-KAR
for road widening under the RMP 2015, the insistence of
the Planning Authority to secure relinquishment of land
free of cost as a precondition for sanction of the building
plan is impermissible. Reliance is placed on the decision of
this Court in W.P.No.9408/2020 and connected matters,
wherein the validity of the Circular dated 29.02.2016
issued by the BBMP, mandating such relinquishment, was
considered. This Court held that the said Circular was
violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Further reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court
in W.P.No.15103/2022, wherein it was reiterated that the
authorities cannot insist upon surrender of land earmarked
for road widening in the RMP 2015, free of cost, either as
a condition precedent for sanction of building plans or for
grant of occupancy certificate.
7. In the above background, referring to the series
of representations made, the petitioner is before this Court
seeking the reliefs as set out supra.
NC: 2025:KHC:35813
HC-KAR
8. The respondent-authorities have filed detailed
statements of objection contending that the petitioner had
voluntarily executed a registered relinquishment deed in
2016 in compliance with the conditions imposed while
granting plan sanction. It is submitted that once such a
registered relinquishment deed is executed, transferring
rights in immovable property under the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 read with the Registration Act, 1908,
the present writ petition, filed nearly nine years thereafter,
is barred by delay and laches. It is further contended that
the relief sought necessarily involves cancellation of a
registered instrument, which requires adjudication of
disputed questions of fact, and the same can only be
decided by a competent Civil Court. On this basis,
dismissal of the petition is sought.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, learned counsel for the BBMP, and learned
counsel for respondent No.5. Records have been perused.
NC: 2025:KHC:35813
HC-KAR
10. In the light of the rival submissions, the
following points arise for consideration:
1) Whether in view of the recent decision
rendered by the coordinate Bench in
W.P.No.15103/2022 holding that planning authority
cannot insist on surrender/relinquishment of a
portion of a land earmarked for road widening
indicated in the master plan, this Court in a writ
jurisdiction, can undo a registered relinquishment
deed executed by the petitioner in 2016 and
consequently, issue a mandamus for restoration of
title and possession?
2) Whether the petition is liable to be
dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate
and efficacious remedy?
Finding on Point Nos.1 and 2:
11. It is a settled proposition of law that a writ of
mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
lies only to compel the performance of a statutory or
public duty, or to restrain action undertaken without
authority of law. Equally well settled is the principle that
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35813
HC-KAR
questions relating to title of immovable property, the
validity of private instruments, or cancellation of
registered conveyances fall within the exclusive domain of
the civil Court. Remedies under the Specific Relief Act,
1963 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide the
appropriate forum for adjudication of such disputes. The
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not fashioned as a
substitute for ordinary civil remedies, particularly where
the adjudication of the lis would require reception of oral
and documentary evidence, examination of the validity of
registered documents, and consideration of issues such as
estoppel, waiver, acquiescence, or other mixed questions
of law and fact.
12. In the present case, the core of the petitioner's
claim rests upon challenging the registered relinquishment
deed executed in the year 2016. The petitioner contends
that the deed is vitiated because the precondition imposed
by respondent No.2/BBMP/Planning Authority, requiring
surrender of a portion of the property for road widening,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35813
HC-KAR
was beyond its authority and therefore illegal. The issue,
however, is not merely one of examining the legality of the
administrative condition. It involves a larger question
whether the petitioner, having voluntarily executed the
relinquishment deed pursuant to such condition, can now
be permitted to contend that the transaction is void ab
initio, or whether the relinquishment deed is only voidable
at the instance of the transferor. Such a determination is
not purely a legal exercise; it entails adjudication of mixed
questions of law and fact, which necessarily fall within the
province of a competent civil Court.
13. Once a registered relinquishment deed has
been executed and remains valid and subsisting, it binds
the parties to it unless it is set aside in a manner known to
law. A registered instrument, by virtue of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 read with the Registration Act, 1908,
carries statutory consequences by vesting title in the
transferee. Administrative circulars, executive directions,
or regulatory orders cannot have the effect of annulling or
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35813
HC-KAR
cancelling a registered instrument. Likewise, a writ of
mandamus cannot be invoked to nullify the operation of a
registered conveyance deed. The proper remedy available
to a party aggrieved by such a transaction is to institute a
civil suit seeking comprehensive declaratory relief,
including cancellation of the registered document, in
accordance with the provisions of the Specific Relief Act,
1963.
14. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has placed
reliance upon recent judgments of coordinate Benches of
this Court, wherein it has been held that a planning
authority cannot insist upon surrender of private land,
earmarked in the Revised Master Plan, as a precondition
for approval of building plans or issuance of occupancy
certificates. These pronouncements delineate the
regulatory limits of the planning authority. However, the
said judgments cannot be extended to obliterate or undo a
registered conveyance executed by a landowner pursuant
to such condition. The legal effect of a subsisting
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35813
HC-KAR
registered deed stands on a different footing altogether,
and unless the deed is set aside through due process
before a competent civil Court, the same continues to bind
the parties thereto.
15. In the present case, however, the factual
position is undisputed that the earmarked portion of the
property stood conveyed by the petitioner under a
registered relinquishment deed executed in the year 2016.
The records further disclose that possession of the said
portion has already been handed over to respondent No.5
for the purpose of implementing public projects intended
to serve the larger interest of the community. Once such a
registered conveyance has been executed and third-party
rights have been created pursuant to a valid transfer, the
petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 to nullify the legal
consequences flowing from the said transaction.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35813
HC-KAR
16. A relinquishment deed, being a registered
instrument of transfer, derives its efficacy from the
provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, read with
the Registration Act, 1908, and carries with it the
presumption of validity and enforceability unless annulled
or cancelled by a competent civil Court in a duly instituted
proceeding. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963 provides that any person against whom a written
instrument is void or voidable, and who apprehends
serious injury therefrom, may institute a suit to have it
adjudged void or voidable and seek its cancellation.
Similarly, Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act enables a
person entitled to any legal character or right to property
to seek a declaratory decree. The petitioner, therefore,
has an efficacious statutory remedy under the civil law to
question the validity of the relinquishment deed.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bellachi vs.
Pakeeran1, has held that a registered document carries
AIR 2009 SC 3293
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35813
HC-KAR
with it a presumption of validity and legality, and so long
as the document is not set aside in a manner known to
law, the rights flowing therefrom cannot be ignored.
Likewise, in, Satya Pal Anand vss State of M.P. And
Ors2, it was reiterated that unless a registered instrument
is cancelled by a competent Court of law, the same
continues to bind the parties and its legal consequences
cannot be undone by administrative or executive
directions.
18. In that view of the matter, unless and until the
relinquishment deed executed in 2016 is challenged and
set aside by a competent civil Court in accordance with
law, the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ
petition seeking directions to the respondents to acquire
the very same property and pay compensation. The issue
of entitlement to compensation would arise for
consideration only if the registered relinquishment deed is
first annulled in a manner known to law. Accordingly,
2016 SCC Online SC 1202
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35813
HC-KAR
point No.1 formulated above is answered in the 'negative'
and point No.2 is answered in the 'affirmative'.
19. For the reasons stated above, the petition is
dismissed.
The interim order granted earlier shall be in force for
a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
