Karnataka High Court
M/S. Kristal Group vs Anekal Development Authority on 19 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:37811
WP No. 61887 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 61887 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. KRISTAL GROUP
NO.1, 4TH CROSS, 29TH MAIN,
BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 076.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SMT. LATHA NAMBOOTHIRI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SOHANI A HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ANEKAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
'ANNA' NO 430, HENNAGARA GATE,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560099.
Digitally signed REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR.
by CHAITHRA A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. KRISTAL CAMPUS 10 OWNERS' WELFARE
KARNATAKA
ASSOCIATION,
KRISTAL CAMPUS 10,
SITUATED AT SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD,
YAMARE, BANGALORE-562125.
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT.
3. M/S. BHAVISHA PROPERTIE
NO.001, 3RD FLOOR, SY.NO.54, 55/1,
SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD,
YAMARE VILLAGE,
BENGALURU -562125.
REP. BY MR. S.PRASAD NAIDU,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:37811
WP No. 61887 of 2016
HC-KAR
S/O SRI. RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
4. SRI. RAHUL DUTTA
S/O AJIT KUMAR DUTTA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.301, THIRD FLOOR,
"BHAVISHA GREENWOODS" APARTMENT,
SOMPURA VILLAGE,
SAJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-562125.
5. SRI. SUMITH KUMAR
S/O SRI. RAMVILAS SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.011, GROUND FLOOR,
"BHAVISHA GREENWOODS" APARTMENT,
SOMPURA VILLAGE,
SAJAPUARA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-562125.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. YOGESH NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. K V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE AND
SMT. TANUJA V J., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. M. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCARE FOR PROPOSED
RESPONDENTS ON IA 1/17;
SRI. RAMESH BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DTD.11.11.2016 VIDE ANENX-L,
ACCORDING TO LAW. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
OPERATION OF THE ORDER DTD.11.11.2016 AS PER ANNEX-L,
ACCORDING TO LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:37811
WP No. 61887 of 2016
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 11-11-2016 (Annexure-L) passed by Respondent No.1/Planning Authority, whereby the petitioner was directed to demolish the compound wall constructed around its layout situated at Yamare Village, Sarjapur and Anekal Taluk.
2. The petitioner asserts that it is the absolute owner in possession of lands measuring 17 acres 18 guntas and an additional 1 acre 6 guntas, collectively referred to as the scheduled property. The petitioner obtained layout approval on 10-11-2005 from the Bengaluru Metropolitan Area Development Authority (BMADA) for development of a housing layout in respect of 17 acres 24 guntas of the property.
3. Subsequently, the Anekal Planning Authority (Respondent No.1) approved a modified layout plan for the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR entire scheduled property and issued a commencement certificate. Both the BMADA and Respondent No.1 approvals contained Clause 11, stipulating that existing access from the layout roads to neighboring lands shall not be restricted.
4. Relying on the sanctioned plan (Annexure-C), the petitioner contends that the plan itself depicts a compound wall around the layout with gates for ingress and egress, indicating that the construction of the compound wall was sanctioned from the inception.
5. The petitioner submits that the layout has been developed strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan, without any deviations. Photographs (Annexure-D series) evidencing the development of roads and civic amenities in conformity with the sanctioned plan have been produced.
6. It is contended that there was no suppression or misrepresentation in obtaining sanction, nor any contravention of conditions. Further, no complaints were -5- NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR received against the petitioner until the issuance of the impugned order.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.61/2023, submits that this Court has held that roads within a private sanctioned layout are not intended as public thoroughfares, and outsiders cannot claim a right of user as a matter of course. It is argued that the compound wall is consistent with the sanctioned plan, and the impugned demolition order is contrary both to the sanction plan and to the law declared by this Court.
8. Learned Counsel has further relied on the Master Plan 2031 (Annexure-P) and the superimposed village map (Annexure-Q), which demonstrate that no public road passes through the petitioner's property. It is urged that the internal layout roads are private, and neighbouring apartment owners cannot assert any right of access thereto.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR
9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1 has relied upon the modified plan dated 20.04.2011(Annexure-B), particularly Condition No.11, which provides that roads in the layout shall not restrict connectivity to neighbouring lands.
10. It is submitted that the petitioner executed a Relinquishment Deed on 19-04-2011, thereby relinquishing all rights in respect of roads, parks, and public utility areas in favour of the Planning Authority. Consequently, such areas vested in the Authority, and the petitioner ceased to have any rights over them.
11. Following a complaint dated 09-02-2016 from adjoining landowners alleging obstruction of access, a notice under Section 17(4) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act was issued. Instead of complying, the petitioner approached this Court. The earlier writ petition was disposed of, directing that the order dated 16- 09-2016 be treated as a show-cause notice, permitting the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR petitioner to respond. After considering the reply, the Authority, by order dated 11-11-2016, directed demolition of the compound wall on the ground that the petitioner had blocked public access to the road.
12. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on two Coordinate Bench judgments (W.P. No.28279/2010 and W.P. No.22868/2024), which hold that once a Relinquishment Deed is executed, the roads and common amenities vest in the Planning Authority, and the public at large acquires a right of user. Applying this principle, it is submitted that the construction of compound wall is impermissible and the impugned order is valid.
13. Private respondents 3 to 5, owners of residential apartments constructed in the adjoining survey numbers, have filed detailed statements of objections. They rely on the registered Relinquishment Deed executed by the petitioner in favour of Respondent No.1, contending that all roads, civic amenities, and parks in the petitioner's -8- NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR layout now vest in the Planning Authority. Accordingly, the internal roads are public in nature, and the adjoining owners, including themselves, are entitled to lawful access.
14. The private respondents rely on the sanctioned plan (Annexure-R13), which recognizes one of the roads passing through the petitioner's layout as the access road to their apartment complex. Their residential apartments, constructed by Respondent No.3 on Sy.Nos.43/2A, 43/5, and 43/3A of Somapura Village, are otherwise surrounded by private lands, and the road passing through the petitioner's layout constitutes their lawful ingress and egress.
15. They further rely on Coordinate Bench judgments to submit that once a developer executes a relinquishment deed in favour of the Planning Authority, ownership and control of the roads vest absolutely with the Authority. Blocking such roads is impermissible, and -9- NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR the compound wall is therefore unauthorized, obstructs lawful access, and must be demolished.
16. It is further urged that once the roads stand relinquished and vested in the local authority, the petitioner cannot treat them as private or restrict access. Such obstruction causes serious hardship to residents and defeats the objective of relinquishment, which is to ensure civic amenities serve the larger public interest.
17. A similar stand is taken by the impleading applicants, who support respondents 3 to 5. They rely on the registered Relinquishment Deed and the sanctioned layout plan to assert that the disputed road is a recognized public road vested in the Planning Authority. The petitioner cannot claim exclusive rights over this road, and the erection of a compound wall is illegal, arbitrary, and detrimental to the public.
18. From the rival pleadings and submissions, the following points arise for consideration before this Court:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR "1. Whether Respondent No.1 - Planning Authority, had the jurisdiction and competence to issue the impugned order dated 11.11.2016 directing demolition of the compound wall?
2. Whether, by virtue of the Relinquishment Deed executed by the petitioner on 19.04.2011, the internal layout roads stood vested in the Planning Authority and thereby acquired the character of public roads?
3. Whether the petitioner, notwithstanding such relinquishment, is entitled to erect and retain a compound wall and gates so as to restrict access to the adjoining landowners and members of the general public, particularly in view of the sanction plan and the Division Bench ruling in W.A. No.61/2023?"
Finding on Point No.1:
19. The impugned order dated 11.11.2016 has been passed by Respondent No.1 in exercise of its statutory powers under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. The order was issued pursuant to a
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR complaint lodged by neighbouring landowners, alleging obstruction of access to their properties. Upon receipt of such a complaint, it was well within the jurisdiction of the Planning Authority to examine whether the sanctioned layout plan, as well as the conditions imposed therein, were being duly complied with by the developer.
20. The statutory framework empowers the Authority to scrutinize the development carried out within the layout and to ensure that all conditions stipulated in the sanction, including those concerning roads, civic amenities, and access to neighboring properties, are faithfully adhered to. In the event of any non-compliance or obstruction, the Authority is empowered to initiate corrective measures, which include issuing notices and, if necessary, directing the removal of structures such as unauthorized compound walls that impede access.
21. In the present case, the petitioner had constructed a compound wall around the layout, which,
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR according to the neighboring landowners, obstructed their lawful access to adjoining properties. The Planning Authority, in the discharge of its statutory duty, issued a notice under the provisions of the Act and, after considering the petitioner's reply, passed the impugned order directing the demolition of the compound wall. Given the above, it cannot be said that the Authority acted without jurisdiction or exceeded its powers. On the contrary, the issuance of the notice and the subsequent order fall squarely within the statutory mandate of the Planning Authority to ensure compliance with sanctioned layouts and to protect the rights of neighbouring landowners. Accordingly point no. 1 is answered in "affirmative".
Finding on Point No.2:
22. It is an admitted position that the petitioner voluntarily executed a registered Relinquishment Deed on 19.04.2011, by which all roads, civic amenity sites, and
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR parks within the layout were formally relinquished in favor of the Planning Authority. This Relinquishment Deed is of critical relevance to the present case, as it unequivocally transferred the ownership and control of the said roads and amenities from the petitioner to the Authority.
23. Condition 11, incorporated by the Authority at the time of sanctioning the layout plan, has direct bearing on the present dispute. The condition specifically stipulates that the roads within the layout shall not obstruct or restrict access to neighbouring properties. This condition was imposed with a clear intent to ensure that the internal roads of the layout, while forming part of the petitioner's development, could not be used to deny ingress or egress to adjacent landowners or the public at large.
24. In light of the execution of the Relinquishment Deed and the express condition in the sanctioned layout plan, it is evident that the petitioner ceased to have any exclusive rights over the internal roads and other civic
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR amenities. Consequently, any act on the part of the petitioner to block access by erecting a compound wall would constitute a breach of both the relinquishment and the conditions imposed in the sanctioned plan. The Planning Authority, therefore, acted well within its statutory powers in directing removal of the compound wall to ensure that the rights of neighbouring landowners and the public at large are protected. Condition 11 incorporated by the authority while sanctioning the layout plan has a direct bearing on the case at hand and the same is extracted for ready reference "11. «£Áå¸ÀzÀ°è£À gÀ¸ÉÛUÀ½AzÀ CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðªÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁgÀtPÀÆÌ ¤§ðA¢¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è." The legal effect of a relinquishment of roads, parks, and other civic amenity sites has been examined and consistently upheld in a series of judicial pronouncements, including the judgments of the Coordinate Bench in W.P. No.28279/2010 and W.P. No.22868/2024. In these
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR decisions, it has been firmly established that once a developer executes a registered Relinquishment Deed, the areas covered by such deed vest absolutely in the Planning Authority. Upon such vesting, the roads, parks, and civic amenities cease to be the private property of the developer or the site owners and instead become part of the public domain, fully controlled and managed by the local authority.
25. The petitioner's contention that the internal roads within the layout are exclusively for the use of the layout site owners is therefore wholly untenable. Relinquishment under the Town and Country Planning framework is a statutory mechanism designed to ensure that essential civic amenities such as roads, parks, and public utility spaces serve the wider public interest and are not restricted to a limited class of residents. The very purpose of such relinquishment is to integrate internal layout roads into the public infrastructure, enabling adjoining landowners, residents of neighboring
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR developments, and the public at large to lawfully access and utilize them.
26. Once these areas vest in the Planning Authority, it acquires the right and responsibility to regulate and manage them for the benefit of the public. Any attempt by the petitioner to assert exclusive ownership or control over such roads directly contravenes the objectives of town planning law and undermines the statutory purpose of the relinquishment. Treating such roads as private and restricting access would not only be legally impermissible but would also defeat the overarching goal of ensuring orderly development, public convenience, and free passage as envisaged under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. Accordingly, point no. 2 is answered in 'affirmative'
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR Finding on Point No.3:
27. Before this Court delves on this issue, it is apposite to extract para 2 and 3 of judgement rendered in W.A.No. 61/2023.
"2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter being broadly in agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that the roads in the layout concerned can be made use of both by the residents of the layout and others as well. This is consistent with condition No.11 incorporated by the competent authority while sanctioning the layout plan. This view gains support also from a co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of Classic Orchards Property Owners VS. State of Karnataka in W.A.Nos.3384-3387/2016, disposed off on 21.10.2016.
3. Learned Single Judge at para 16 has rightly observed as under:-
"16. In view of the aforesaid position of law and in view of the factual position narrated hereinabove and also in view of submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent - Authority that action would be taken against respondent No.4 pursuant to the notice already issued for removal of obstruction nothing remains fro consideration except to direct the respondent-Authority to ensure compliance of condition-11 of the sanctioned plan by respondent
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR No.4 within an outer limit of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by removing the obstructions and not causing any obstruction to the users of the neighboring properties."
In the absence of condition-11 subject to which the layout plan was approved, we would have appreciated the contention of the appellant that the roads in the subject layout were exclusively meant for its residents and therefore, outsiders cannot as a matter of right tread the same. However, that is not the case. It hardly needs to be stated that there is no impediment in law as it now obtains that for special reasons even with the stipulation of the condition-11 a specific concession can be obtained at the hands of the authorities that despite of relinquishment of the roads and public amenity spaces, the said roads are not intended to be a thoroughfare and therefore, outsiders cannot as a matter of course can make use of the same.
In our considered view, such an arrangement would not militate the idea of such roads being relinquished to the concerned authority or the local body. That being said, we need to clarify that once the relinquishment is done, the land owner or the developer of the layout will have no right whatsoever, which they had before relinquishment was done."
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR
28. The petitioner has sought to rely both on the sanctioned layout plan and on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. No.61/2023. However, in the considered view of this Court, such reliance is fundamentally misplaced. The petitioner contends that, notwithstanding the execution of a registered Relinquishment Deed in respect of internal roads and public amenity spaces, outsiders cannot, as a matter of right, use the internal roads formed within the layout. This contention cannot be accepted.
29. A close reading of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Division Bench judgment makes it abundantly clear that the Bench did not extend any indulgence to the appellants in that case. On the contrary, the Division Bench affirmed the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, holding that roads within a private layout cannot be treated as exclusively private thoroughfares. The judgment expressly recognized that such roads, while forming part of a layout developed by a private owner, can lawfully be used both
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR by residents of the layout and by the general public. The Bench also emphasized Condition No.11, incorporated by the competent authority at the time of sanctioning the layout, which explicitly contemplated public use of such roads. Far from supporting the petitioner's position, the Division Bench judgment reinforces the principle that the internal roads within a sanctioned layout, once vested in the Planning Authority, are to be treated as public roads in the interest of orderly development and public convenience.
30. The rationale and legal position articulated in the Division Bench judgment thus does not advance the petitioner's case. On the contrary, it supports the claim of the respondent authorities. Once a developer or owner executes a registered Relinquishment Deed in favor of the Planning Authority in respect of internal roads, parks, and civic amenities, such properties vest absolutely with the Planning Authority. Thereafter, when these areas are handed over to the jurisdictional local authority in the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR present case, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) the authority acquires full control and management rights. This includes the power to maintain, regulate, and permit lawful public use of the roads and amenities. The development of a private housing layout by the petitioner does not create any residual private property rights over the roads once they have been officially relinquished; the statutory effect of vesting under the Relinquishment Deed overrides any private interest.
31. The petitioner's reliance on the sanctioned layout plan is likewise misplaced. While the layout plan may have depicted the possibility of erecting compound walls for delineation purposes, such indication is always subject to overriding statutory obligations imposed by the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and the terms of the registered Relinquishment Deed. Clause 11 of the sanctioned plan explicitly provides that access to neighboring lands shall not be obstructed. Consequently, any attempt by the petitioner to construct gates or erect
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR compound walls that restrict access to these roads would contravene both the conditions of sanction and the statutory vesting of the roads in the Planning Authority.
32. It is therefore clear that once internal roads, parks, and civic amenities are relinquished and vested in the Planning Authority, neither the petitioner nor the layout site owners can lawfully exercise control over them for private purposes. Erecting compound walls or gates to block ingress and egress constitutes an unlawful usurpation of public property, deprives adjoining landowners and the public of their legitimate right of access, and directly undermines the statutory purpose of town planning, which is to ensure that such amenities serve the larger public interest rather than a limited class of residents. The development of the layout as private property does not, and cannot, confer upon the petitioner the right to restrict public use of roads that have been formally vested in the Planning Authority. Accordingly, point no. 3 is answered in the ' negative'.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR
33. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court records the following:
Conclusion:
a. The registered Relinquishment Deed dated 19.04.2011 has the legal effect of vesting the layout roads in the Planning Authority.
b. Upon such vesting, the roads acquire the character of public roads and no exclusivity can be claimed by the petitioner or by the site owners of the layout.
c. The sanction plan does not confer any overriding right upon the petitioner to erect gates or compound walls. On the contrary, the plan itself mandates that access to neighbouring lands shall not be blocked.
d. Consequently, the impugned order dated 11.11.2016 directing demolition of the compound wall is a lawful exercise of jurisdiction by the Authority and cannot be termed either arbitrary or illegal.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37811 WP No. 61887 of 2016 HC-KAR
34. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(ii) There shall be no order as to costs.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50