Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shanthamma vs State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19493
WP No. 30983 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 30983 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O K. PUTTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT T.NARASIPURA TALUK, BANNUR (RURAL)
BANNUR, MYSORE, KARNATAKA-571101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. DEEPIKA JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
Digitally signed BENGALURU - 560001
by CHAITHRA A REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. URBAN AND RURAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
KARNATAKA OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
CA SITE NO. 26/A, OUTER RING ROAD
2ND PHASE, VIJAYANAGARA, 4TH STAGE
MYSORE - 570032.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SPOORTHY .V, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
TECHNICAL APPROVAL AND ORDER BEARING NO.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19493
WP No. 30983 of 2024
HC-KAR
NaGraYoSaNiMy/Vi.Na.A/99/2024-25/1609 DATED 07/10/2024
ISSUED BY THE R2 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
Learned HCGP is directed to accept notice to respondents 1 and 2.
2. In the captioned petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:
" i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction and quash the Technical Approval and Order bearing No. NaGraYoSaNiMy/Vi.Na.A/99/ 2024-25/1609 dated 07.10.2024 issued by the 2nd Respondent (vide Annexure-A);
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of madamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondent No.2 Planning Authority to release the 'Commercial (Petrol Bunk) Purpose Single Plot Layout' approval as sought for by the Petitioner, excluding the portion earmarked for road widening;"-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:19493 WP No. 30983 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. The petitioner is the absolute owner of land bearing Survey No.375/3 measuring 10 guntas and Survey No.375/4 measuring 25 guntas, both situated at Bannur Village, Bannur Hobli, T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District, having acquired the said properties under a registered sale deed dated 02.09.1998. Pursuant to acquisition, the petitioner obtained necessary conversion orders permitting use of the said lands for non-agricultural commercial purposes.Subsequently, the petitioner entered into a registered lease agreement with one Mr. Shivaprasad S.A. for a period of 20 years to facilitate the establishment of a retail outlet of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited on the aforesaid lands.The petitioner further avers that the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, vide Official Memorandum dated 29.02.2024, accorded conversion of land in Survey No.375/4 measuring 25 guntas specifically for commercial (petrol bunk) purposes. Thereafter, by another Official Memorandum dated 05.06.2024, conversion was also granted for the land in -4- NC: 2025:KHC:19493 WP No. 30983 of 2024 HC-KAR Survey No.375/3 measuring 10 guntas for the same specified use.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 whereby, while granting technical approval for the Single Plot Layout Plan, the authority has imposed Condition No.8 mandating gratuitous relinquishment of land towards road margin. The said condition is arbitrary, onerous, and without authority of law.
5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the order passed by respondent No.2 in entirety, today a memo is filed restricting the challenge to only condition No.8 imposed for approving the single plot layout plan.
6. Petitioner's counsel while questioning the validity of condition No.8 has placed reliance on the reported judgment rendered by the Co-Ordinate Bench in an analogous case. Referring to the judgment, he would -5- NC: 2025:KHC:19493 WP No. 30983 of 2024 HC-KAR point out that this issue is no more res integra and the same is given quietus by the Co-Ordinate Bench in batch of writ petitions.
7. Having heard the learned counsel on record, this Court has given its anxious consideration to the observations made by the Co-Ordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Arun Kumar B.C. .vs. State of Karnataka and others [W.P.No.9408/2020 and connected matters] D.D. on 17.1.2022. This Court deems it fit to extract paragraphs 24 to 26 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"24. The Circular dated 29.2.2016 requiring the owners to surrender the properties earmarked for widening of road free of cost at the time of sanctioning of building plans violates Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the case of KT Plantation (supra) has held that the owner of immovable property cannot be deprived of his property by mere executive order without any specific legal authority or support by competent legislation. In the absence of specific legal authority or support by competent legislation, the impugned Circular issued by the respondent - BBMP violates Article 300A of the Constitution of India.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:19493 WP No. 30983 of 2024 HC-KAR
25. Even otherwise, the impugned endorsements and circulars issued by BBMP is arbitrary and discriminatory since the owners of the properties earmarked as Road in Master Plan 2015 and who have not applied for sanctioning of building plan for developing their properties will be entitled for compensation under Section 71 of KT & CP Act, if the said properties are acquired for implementing the Master Plan. The petitioners cannot be deprived of their properties earmarked as road in the revised Master Plan, 2015 merely because they intend to develop their properties by obtaining sanctioned building plan.
26. In view of preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that the impugned endorsements issued by the respondent - BBMP requiring the petitioners to relinquish the properties in question free of cost as a condition precedent for processing their applications for sanctioning of building plans is without authority of law and the same violate Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petitions stand allowed:
ii) The Circular dated 29.2.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-A & endorsement dated 20.5.2020 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-B in WP No.9408/2020, endorsement dated 24.6.2021 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G in WP No.14095/2021, the order dated 18.12.2020 passed by -7- NC: 2025:KHC:19493 WP No. 30983 of 2024 HC-KAR respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A in WP No.14975/2021 and Circular dated 29.2.2016 vide Annexure-E issued by respondent No.2 in W.P. No.19737 of 2021 are hereby quashed;
iii) The respondent - BBMP is directed to process the applications submitted by the petitioners for sanctioning the building plans and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order." In light of the authoritative pronouncement made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Arun Kumar B.C. vs. State of Karnataka and Others [W.P.No.9408/2020 and connected matters, disposed of on 17.01.2022], this Court has carefully examined the validity and sustainability of Condition No.8 imposed in the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 (Annexure-A), whereby the petitioner has been directed to relinquish a portion of land gratuitously towards road margin as a condition precedent for approving the single plot layout plan.
8. The Co-ordinate Bench, after an exhaustive analysis of constitutional and statutory provisions, -8- NC: 2025:KHC:19493 WP No. 30983 of 2024 HC-KAR specifically held that the executive circular dated 29.02.2016 issued by the BBMP, which required landowners to surrender property free of cost for road widening while sanctioning building plans, was violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The said Article guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. In paragraph 24 of the said judgment, the Co-ordinate Bench has unequivocally observed that in the absence of specific statutory authority or a valid legal framework authorizing such deprivation, any condition mandating surrender of land without compensation is unconstitutional and unenforceable.
9. Further, in paragraph 25, it was rightly observed that such a condition is also discriminatory and arbitrary, inasmuch as it creates an artificial classification between those landowners who seek building plan approvals and those who do not, despite both sets of landowners being similarly placed under the Revised Master Plan 2015. The Bench held that landowners -9- NC: 2025:KHC:19493 WP No. 30983 of 2024 HC-KAR intending to develop their properties cannot be compelled to relinquish their rights without due process of law and without the payment of compensation as contemplated under Section 71 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, if and when the land is acquired for implementing the Master Plan.
10. Relying on this binding precedent, this Court is of the considered view that the imposition of Condition No.8 in the impugned order, which mandates gratuitous relinquishment of land towards road margin, suffers from the very same legal infirmities highlighted by the Co- ordinate Bench. It is manifestly arbitrary, lacks legislative sanction, and directly infringes upon the petitioner's constitutional right to property. Therefore, such a condition cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
11. Accordingly, this Court finds it just and proper to quash Condition No.8 imposed in the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 (Annexure-A), while upholding the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19493 WP No. 30983 of 2024 HC-KAR remaining portion of the order, which does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Condition No.8 of the impugned order vide Annexure-A is hereby set aside.
(iii) Consequently, Respondent No.2/Planning authority is hereby directed to release Commercial (Petrol Bunk Purposes) single plot layout plan excluding the portion ear marked for road widening.
(iv) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4