Karnataka High Court
Dr G V Palaksha vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8591
WP No. 20701 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 20701 OF 2025 (BDA-)
BETWEEN:
1. DR. G.V. PALAKSHA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O LATE G.T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY,
RESIDING AT NO.1141, 21ST CROSS,
SECTOR-03, HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560102.
2. MR. G.V. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O LATE G.T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY,
RESIDING AT NO.335, 9TH MAIN,
4TH PHASE, DOLLARS COLONY,
J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. KALIGOTLA NITYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MANJANNA
E 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Digitally signed by
MANJANNA E VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.02.13
12:20:33 +0530
2. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
THROUGH ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560020.
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - EAST DIVISION
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HSR BDA COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1;
SRI M.H. HANEEF, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8591
WP No. 20701 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE RELINQUISHMENT DEED DATED
04.06.2014 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.727/2014-2015,
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-'A' TO THE EXTENT OF 531.487 SQUARE
METRES (REFLECTED AS R18) THEREIN; CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENTS NOS.2 AND 3 TO
RECONVEY THE RELINQUISHED PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONERS AND ISSUE A MODIFIED SANCTION PLAN AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 09.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners are seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the
Relinquishment Deed dated 04.06.2014 registered
as document No.727/2014-2015, produced at
Annexure 'A' to the extent of 531.487 square
metres (reflected as R18) therein;
(b) Consequently, issue a writ of mandamus
directing Respondents No.2 and 3 to reconvey the
Relinquished Property in favour of the Petitioners
and issue a modified sanction plan;
(c) In the alternative, issue a writ of mandamus,
directing Respondents No.2 and 3 to grant
transferable development rights to the Petitioners
as specified under Section 14-B of the Karnataka
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:8591
WP No. 20701 of 2025
HC-KAR
Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 in lieu of
compensation for having acquired the Relinquished
Property.
d) Grant such other reliefs to the Petitioners as
may be deemed just, in the facts and circumstances
of the case."
Brief facts:
2. The petitioners are the owners/developers of
the lands for which a residential layout approval was
sought from the Planning Authority. While sanctioning the
layout, the petitioners were required to execute a
relinquishment deed dated 04.06.2014, relinquishing
various portions of the land. Out of the land so
relinquished, an extent of 531.487 square meters, shown
as Road No.R-18 in the road schedule appended to the
relinquishment deed, is specifically earmarked in the
sanctioned layout plan as an area for a Comprehensive
Development Plan (CDP) road. The said land is situated at
the periphery of the layout and does not form part of the
internal layout roads, parks or open spaces or civic
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:8591
WP No. 20701 of 2025
HC-KAR
amenity sites. The petitioners state that the said
relinquishment was exclusively for formation / widening of
a CDP road and not towards the internal layout roads,
parks or civic amenity sites and the denial of Transferable
Development Rights (TDR) is illegal and violative of Article
300A of the Constitution. The petitioners submitted a
representation seeking grant of TDR for the said extent.
The same was not acceded to and hence, the present writ
petition.
3. Heard Smt. Kaligotla Nitya, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Sri Harish A.S., learned AGA for
respondent No.1 and Sri M.H. Haneef, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.2 and 3.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the relinquishment of 531.487 square meters was not for
internal layout purpose but solely for CDP road, which
serves the public at large. It is further submitted that
Section 17 (1) and Section 14 B (20) of the Karnataka
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:8591
WP No. 20701 of 2025
HC-KAR
Town Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short 'KTCP Act')
apply only to internal layout components and do not
extend to land taken for CDP / master plan roads. It is
further contended that the land earmarked for CDP roads
can be utilized only by acquisition under Section 69 of the
KTCP Act or by granting TDR as compensatory relief.
Compelling surrender without compensation violates
Article 300A of the Constitution.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon
the following decisions:
i. Kukreja Construction Company and others
Vs. State of Maharashtra and others1
(Kukreja Construction Company)
ii. Srivatsa Developers and others Vs. The
Bangalore Development Authority and
others2 (Srivatsa Developers)
iii. Sri K. Shrinath Hebbar and another Vs. State
of Karnataka and others3 (K. Shrinath Hebbar)
1
(2024) 14 SCC 594
2
W.P. No.48258/2018 D.D. 27.05.2022
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:8591
WP No. 20701 of 2025
HC-KAR
iv. CNC, Mangalore Kavoor Project Private
Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and others4
(CNC, Mangalore Kavoor Project),
v. The Coffee Board Employees Co Operative
House Building Society Limited vs. State of
Karnataka and others5 (The Coffee Board) to
contend that the CDP road land stands on a
distinct footing and attracts entitlement to TDR.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the relinquishment deed was executed as
part of the layout approval and was therefore, free of cost.
In view of Section 14-B (20) of the KTCP Act, the
petitioners are not entitled to TDR. Reliance is placed on
the planning regulations to contend that the roads form
part of the mandatory relinquishment.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits
that an appeal has been preferred against the order
3
W.P. No.18535/2022 D.D. 21.08.2023
4
W.P. No.15148/2023 D.D. 15.11.2023
5
W.P. No.18626/2022 D.D. 16.11.2022
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:8591
WP No. 20701 of 2025
HC-KAR
passed in the case of Srivatsa Developers and therefore,
the relief ought not to be granted or at best, the matter be
remitted for consideration.
8. This Court has carefully considered the
contentions urged and perused the material on record.
9. The contention of the respondents is that
Section 14-B (20) disentitles the petitioners from claiming
TDR, since the petitioners have surrendered the schedule
extent property for the purpose of road within the
meaning of the said provision. In order to answer the
contention urged, it is relevant to extract Section 14-B
(20) of the KTCP Act, which reads thus:
"14B. Benefit of development rights.-
(1) x x x
(20) No person shall be eligible for the
Development Rights for the surrender of the areas
earmarked for road, parks or common open spaces
and Civic Amenity sites to the Planning Authority or
Local Authority while obtaining permission for
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:8591
WP No. 20701 of 2025
HC-KAR
formation of layouts or development any land under
Section 15 or 17."
10. The above-said provision clearly indicates that a
person shall be ineligible for TDS in the event, he
surrenders areas earmarked for road, parks, common
open spaces or civic amenity sites while obtaining
permission for formation of layouts or development of any
land under Sections 15 or 17 of the KTCP Act. It is also
significant to note Section 17(1) of the KTCP Act, which
reads thus:
"17. Sanction for single plot or sub-
division of plot or lay-out of private street.-(1)
The State Government shall by rules prescribe the
standards to be followed and minimum extent of
Land to be considered for approval of Layout for
sub-dividing a plot and prescribe the minimum
extent of area to be earmarked for park, open
spaces and civic amenity sites and laying out roads.
Every person who intends to develop a single plot
or sub-divide his plot by making a layout on or after
the date of the publication of the declaration of
Local Planning Area under Section 4-A, shall submit
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:8591
WP No. 20701 of 2025
HC-KAR
detailed plan of the layout of his plot showing
layout of roads, sub-divided plots and earmarking
area for park and open spaces and civic amenities
to such extent and in such manner, as prescribed."
11. The said section mandates free relinquishment
only in respect of internal layouts, parks, playgrounds and
civic amenity sites. In other words, land taken for CDP/
master plan road, which serves public at large and lies
outside or at the periphery of the layout, does not fall
within the statutory embargo.
12. This Court, in the case of CNC, Mangalore
Kavoor Project, has held that land used for widening of
any existing CDP road lying outside or on the periphery of
the layout, does not attract Section 14-B (20) and entitles
the land owner to TDR.
13. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Srivatsa
Developers has held that coercive relinquishment for
road widening without acquisition or compensation is
impermissible and violates Article 300A. Merely because
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8591
WP No. 20701 of 2025
HC-KAR
an appeal is stated to have been preferred against the said
judgment, in the absence of any stay, the judgment
continues to hold the field.
14. The Apex Court in the case of Kukreja
Construction Company has held at paragraph Nos.68.1,
68.4 and 70 as under:
"68.1. WP No.1898 of 2009 -- Kukreja
Construction and Others v. State of Maharashtra
and Others: (Apurva Natvar Parikh case, 2018 SCC
OnLine Bom 6436] , SCC OnLine Bom para 61)
"61. In Writ Petition No.1898 of 2009, the
petitioners' land was reserved for 18.3 m wide
DP Road. The petitioners surrendered the
reserved land and were granted TDR in lieu of
the reserved land. Thereafter, the petitioners
constructed DP Road as claimed in the petition
and a completion certificate was issued on 19-8-
1994. According to the case of the petitioners,
they carried out work of storm water drain for
which competition certificate was issued on 17-
3-2003. According to their case, the TDR in
respect of the land was issued on 16-3-1994 and
5-4-2003. On 21-7-2003, the petitioners
through their Architect applied for grant of
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8591
WP No. 20701 of 2025
HC-KAR
additional TDR under clause (6) of Appendix VII.
But the application made by the petitioner (Ext.
I) shows that on 21-7-2003, only 25% additional
TDR was claimed in respect of amenity of DP
Road. It is not the case of the petitioners that
thereafter they followed the said application by
issuing reminders. For six years or more, no
claim was made for 100% TDR on account of
construction of the amenity. However, on 28-8-
2009, through their Architect, the petitioners
applied for grant of additional TDR for the
amenity equivalent to 100% of the area. The
said application was made only after the decision
of the Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg.
Co., (2009) 5 SCC 24 and the present petition
was lodged on 15-9-2009. Therefore, in facts of
the case, no relief can be granted as for a period
of more than six years after surrender, no claim
was made for 100% TDR."
x x x
68.4. WP No. 2871 of 2015 -- Jameel A.
Hussain and Others v. State of Maharashtra and
Others: (Apurva Natvar Parikh case, 2018 SCC
OnLine Bom 6436] , SCC OnLine Bom para 65)
"65. In Writ Petition No. 2871 of 2015, the
reservation of the land claimed by the
petitioners was for DP Road. The possession of
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8591
WP No. 20701 of 2025
HC-KAR
the developed portion of the reserved land was
taken over by the said Corporation on 29-7-
2004. The completion certificate was issued on
23-8-2014. It is claimed in the petition that FSI
in respect of surrender of land was granted but
FSI in respect of amenity constructed thereon
was never granted. Going by the averments
made in the petition, though the petitioners
claim to have surrendered the reserved land
with amenity on 29-7-2004, the petitioners
never applied for grant of 100% TDR in respect
of the amenity. Even after the decision of the
Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.,
(2009) 5 SCC 24 which is of 6-2-2009, the
petitioners did not apply for grant of additional
FSI/TDR in respect of amenity surrendered in
the year 2004 and for the first time by a letter
dated 17-2-2012, the petitioners applied for
grant of additional TDR. The proposal for grant
of additional TDR was rejected on 30-1-2015.
Thereafter the petition was filed. Thus, after
surrendering the reserved land on 29-7-2004,
the petitioners never claimed TDR in respect of
the amenity developed by them till 17-2-2012.
The application was made three years after the
decision of the Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce
Mfg. Co. Considering this conduct of the
petitioners which virtually amounts to
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8591
WP No. 20701 of 2025
HC-KAR
abandonment of their right, no relief can be
granted to the petitioners in this petition."
x x x
70. We have referred to the decisions of this
Court where the question of delay and laches would
not arise in matters such as the present cases.
When relief in the nature of compensation is
sought, as in the instant case, once the
compensation is determined in the form of
FSI/TDR, the same is payable even in the absence
of there being any representation or request being
made. In fact, a duty is cast on the State to pay
compensation to the land losers as otherwise there
would be a breach of Article 300-A of the
Constitution. As rightly contended by the learned
Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants
herein, the respondent Mumbai Municipal
Corporation has not established that owing to a
short delay even if it has occurred in any of these
cases owing to uncertainty in law, the Corporation
has been prejudiced by the same or that the third-
party rights had been created which could not be
disturbed owing to delay or laches. The calculation
of period of delay in the table submitted by the
learned Senior Counsel for the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation is not acceptable in view of our
discussion above. The decisions referred to by us
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8591
WP No. 20701 of 2025
HC-KAR
above would clearly indicate that neither the
doctrine of delay and laches nor the principle of
abandonment of claim or waiver would apply in
these cases. Rather the delay has occurred on the
part of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in
complying with the Regulations insofar as these
appellants are concerned."
15. The Apex Court has held that a duty is cast
upon the State to pay compensation to landowners or
otherwise, there would be a breach of Article 300A of the
Constitution. In view of the settled legal position and the
undisputed facts, the issue of entitlement is clear. Since
the relinquishment of land measuring 531.487 square
meters was solely for a CDP road, the denial of TDR is
unsustainable in law, and accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. Prayer No.(a) is dismissed as not pressed.
ii. The writ petition is allowed-in-part.
iii. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to grant Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to the
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8591 WP No. 20701 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioners, proportionate to the said extent, in accordance with law.
iv. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM Ct-RM List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1