[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Tumkur Urban Development Authority vs State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2026
-1-
WA No. 849 of 2025
Reserved on : 26.03.2026
Pronounced on : 08.04.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 849 OF 2025 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN:
THE TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BELAGUMBA ROAD,
TUMKUR - 572 102.
BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO
High Court REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
of Karnataka
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
TUMKUR DISTRICT,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
TUMKUR - 572 101.
3. THE ASSISTANT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
-2-
WA No. 849 of 2025
TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION,
TUMKUR - 572 101.
4. THE COMMISSIONER,
TUMKUR MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
TOWN HALL,
TUMKUR - 572 101.
5. MR.SIKANDER,
S/O.ABDUL REHAMAN SAB,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF DADAPEER SAW MILL,
DIBBUR ROAD,
GUBBI CHECK POST,
TUMKUR - 572 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO 3;
SRI.MOHAN.S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2024
IN WRIT PETITION NO.677/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION
No.677/2022.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED/ PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
-3-
WA No. 849 of 2025
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M NADAF)
The Tumkur Urban Development Authority -
respondent No.4 in W.P.No.677/2022 is in appeal under
Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961,
challenging the order dated 14.02.2024.
2. Under the impugned order, the Writ Court
allowed the Writ Petition directing respondents 4 and 5 to
pass necessary award and compensate the petitioner or
owner of the property, which is the subject matter of the
Writ Petition, which is used/ intended to be used for
formation of the road.
3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Writ Court.
4. The brief factual matrix leading to filing of this
appeal are as under:
The petitioner approached the Writ Court contending
that he is the owner of 29 Guntas of land in Sy.No.196/1
(new Survey Nos.196/11 and 196/3), Amanikere village,
Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, Tumkur District. He has
submitted an application for sanction of plan for
construction of residential house (single plot) on the said
property. The fourth respondent vide order dated
08.08.2012 sanctioned the plan, however with a rider that
the authorities were intending to widen the road which
was in front of the property of the petitioner, a condition
had been imposed on the petitioner that he should put up
a compound after 75 feet from the centre of the road and
thereafter to put up construction in accordance with law.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent
to the sanctioned plan, a portion of his property has been
earmarked for formation of road for which he would not be
paid any compensation. He submits that he being the
owner of the land, having the constitutional right under
Article 300A, be compensated for use by the authority by
adopting due process of law i.e., by means of acquiring
the land and paying compensation. In that regard, he has
submitted his representation, an Endorsement dated
20.09.2019 has been issued by respondent No.3 stating
that his representation was forwarded to the Government
for necessary instructions, however no instructions have
been received, in that view of the matter his request has
been kept in abeyance. As there has been no further
communication, the petitioner has approached the Writ
Court.
6. Before the Writ Court, the petitioner submitted
that he had no objection for acquiring the portion of the
land after paying the compensation for formation of the
road. His relief was restricted with limited prayer for a
direction to the authorities to grant compensation in
respect of the land to be utilized for the intended road to
be formed.
7. Refuting the said contentions, learned counsel
for respondent No.4, taking shelter under Section 32(5) of
the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987
(for short 'the Act'), submits that the petitioner is not
entitled for compensation for the land over which the road
is being formed. Respondent No.4 would further contend
that any person who intends to form a layout is liable to
surrender certain extent of land to the authorities
concerned for formation of road, civic amenities, parks and
the like and for that reason, he is not entitled for any
compensation. The plan for residential house is sanctioned
subject to condition that he has to construct compound
wall leaving 75 feet from the centre of the road.
8. The Writ Court having considered the rival
submissions was of the opinion that there is no condition
except stating that compound wall to be constructed 75
feet away from the middle of the road and no condition
regarding relinquishment of the property of the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, taking note of Section 32(5)
placing reliance on the Judgment in MR.M.RAJU VS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS reported in (2023 0
SUPREME (KAR) 224) on Section 32(5) of the Act,
allowed the Writ Petition directing respondents 4 and 5 as
stated supra. It is this order passed by the Writ Court is
called in question in this appeal.
9. Heard, Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.4 - appellant herein,
Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and
Sri.Mohan.S, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
10. Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, with all vehemence
submits that in an identical matter, the co-ordinate bench
of this Court in W.A.No.1679/2024 in case of
NELAMANGALA PLANNING AUTHORITY VS.
SMT.GAYATRI LAKSHMIPATHI decided on 27.01.2026,
wherein after considering Section 17(2A) of the Karnataka
Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, in Paragraph 9 to
11 held that the party who sought for any sanction of plan
for the construction of building for industrial purpose
requires to surrender land by means of relinquishment
deed to the Planning Authority and which would not
amount to compulsory acquisition of land, as held by the
Writ court in that case and set-aside the order passed by
the Writ Court. In the case on hand, due to inadvertence,
the provision of Section 32(5) of the Act was raised before
the Writ Court, the provision which ought to have been
considered is Section 17(2A) of the Karnataka Town and
Country Planning Act, 1961, which also applies to single
plot development. The party who obtains sanction plan is
required to leave a certain portion of the land in favour of
the planning authority by means of relinquishment deed
and sought to allow the appeal and set-aside the order of
the learned Single Judge.
11. In contrast, Sri.Mohan, with all vehemence
submits that the Judgment on which the reliance was
placed by respondent No.4 - appellant is not applicable to
the facts of the case on hand. In the case on hand, the
plan was sought for construction of residential building in
the land whereas as per the facts of the case, in
NELAMANGALA PLANNING AUTHORITY supra is for
industrial purpose. In these circumstances, the provision is
not applicable. The plan sought for construction of
residential house as a single plot and the provision
prescribes for formation of layout and not for single plot,
accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal.
12. Having perused the entire materials, we are of
the opinion that the Judgment cited by learned counsel for
respondent No.4 is not applicable to facts of the case on
hand. Accepting the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, when we proceeded to dictate the
judgment, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
invites our attention to page No.107 to contend that
subsequent to the sanctioned plan for construction of
residential house, the petitioner has obtained Trade
License dated 24.10.2017 with respect to running of
sawmill in the backyard of the house proposed to be
constructed in the land to which the construction plan of
residential house has been sanctioned.
13. Considering the submissions, we have gone
through Page No.107 i.e., the copy of Trade License dated
24.10.2017 at Annexure-J which says that for the purpose
of running a Sawmill, the license was issued. On the
submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, we found
that the petitioner is trying to start an industry in the
backyard of the house proposed to be constructed on the
plan sanctioned for the purpose of construction of
residential house which amounts to running an industry.
- 10 -
Sawmill comes within the purview of an industry. The
Sawmill facilitates foundational industrial facility where the
logs are processed into lumber and wood products wherein
high speed automated machinery such as saws, lasers,
scanners and clips to convert timber into high value
constructive material are used. It amounts to converting
natural product into a timber which comes within the
purview of industries. In that view of the matter, the
Judgment relied on by respondent No.4 - appellant herein
is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Accordingly, we
are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the
learned Single Judge requires some modification.
14. In the event the petitioner is to start his
industry in the backyard, he has to execute relinquishment
deed in terms of Karnataka Town and Country
Planning Act, 1961, as well as Master Plan 2031 (Revision-
II) Final for Tumkur Local Planning Area Tumkur-2031 AD
Report, 2010. However, in the event the petitioner wants
to start the industry somewhere else other than the land
in dispute, he has to file an undertaking to that effect
- 11 -
before this Court as well as before the concerned
authority. In that view of the matter, in the event if there
is any widening of road, the authorities are bound by the
order passed by the learned Single Judge, if the petitioner
does not want to set up saw mill on the plot in question
and files an undertaking to that effect.
15. With these observations, the Writ Appeal is
disposed of.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, does not
survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
TKN
