Allowed

M/S Mahindra Homes Private Limited v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC23 Feb 2022WP/2769/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No. 2769/2022, the petitioner petitioned for TDR certificate under Section 14-B of KT&CP Act, 1961. The court directed Respondent No. 1 to issue the TDR certificate within two months upon surrender of schedule property.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 1 to issue TDR certificate for 954.30 sq. mts. within two months.

M/S Mahindra Homes Private Limited Vs Bruhat Bengaluru… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.2769/2022(LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

M/S MAHINDRA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWS AS WATSONIA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD) A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5TH MAHINDRA TOWERS, WORLI, MUMBAI 400018 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR K K VISWANATHAN

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SANJAY NAIR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BANGALORE 560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶12

2 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SOUTH) MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICES N R SQUARE BANGALORE 560002

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST

¶14

¶15

WEST PALACE GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU-560 020

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI N.R.JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) CERTIFICATE TO THE PETITIONER TO THE EXTENT OF 1431.45 SQ.MTRS IN LIUE OF SURRENDER OF PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY FREE OF COST, FREE OF ENCUMBRANCES BY THE PETITIONER AS PER THE RELINQUISHMENT DEED DATED 24.03.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-C WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME TO BE FIXED BY THIS HONBLE COURT

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner surrendered the schedule property in favour of the respondent – BBMP for the purpose of formation of road by executing a relinquishment deed dated 23.4.2015 subject to grant of Transfer of Development Rights (for short TDR) certificate as specified under Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short KT & CP Act’).

¶22

The petitioner’s grievance is that though he is entitled for grant of TDR certificate in lieu of compensation for surrendering the land in favour of the respondent – BBMP for the

¶23

¶24

purpose of formation of road, the respondent – BBMP has not granted the TDR certificate in favour of the petitioner till today.

¶25

The petitioner having surrendered the schedule property in favour of the respondent – BBMP for formation of road is entitled for grant of TDR certificate as specified under Section 14-B of the KT & CP Act in lieu of compensation. The deprival of grant of TDR certificate in favour of the petitioner violates of Article 300A of Constitution of India.

¶26

Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents No.1 to issue TDR certificate to the petitioner for having surrendered 954.30 sq. mts. of the schedule property in favour of the respondent – BBMP under relinquishment deed dated 23.4.2015. The said exercise shall be concluded within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

BKM

M/S Mahindra Homes Private Limited v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mahindra Homes Private Limited v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Federal Mogul Goetz (India) Limited Vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Smt. Valarmathi Vs Smt. S Devi

M/S Bharath Kumar Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Smt T Nagarathna @ Nagamma Vs Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited

Mr. T. v. Mohan Vs the State Government of Karnataka

Sri T Sudhakar Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike