Allowed¶57

Nelmangala Planning Authority v. Smt Gayatri Lakshmipathi

Karnataka HC27 Jan 2026WA/1679/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: relinquishment deed; road widening; 12 meters wide road; building plan sanction; industrial building; compulsory acquisition; Article 300A of the Constitution; Section 17(2A) Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961; Regulation No.15.3.22 Nelamangala Zonal Regulations; Nelamangala Local Planning Area Master Plan; FAR; Sy.No.76/2 Lakkenhalli Village Soluru Hobli Magadi Taluk; Panchayat Development Officer; writ appeal LB-RES; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act. Outcome: writ appeal allowed, Single Judge's order dated 12.09.2024 in W.P. No.4647/2024 set aside, writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed: the judgment and order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4647/2024 set aside and the writ petition dismissed; all pending IAs disposed of. ¶57

Nelmangala Planning Authority Vs Smt Gayatri Lakshmipathi — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal allowed: the judgment and order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4647/2024 set aside and the writ petition dismissed; all pending IAs disposed of.

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the Planning Authority's communication dated 16.12.2023 requiring the petitioner to execute a relinquishment deed for 697.92 square meters of her land (to provide a 12-meter-wide road) amounts to compulsory acquisition without payment in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution. +1 more

¶57

Court's answer

Relinquishment of land for a 12-meter-wide road, as required under Section 17(2A) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and Regulation No.15.3.22 of the Nelamangala Planning Authority Regulations, does not amount to compulsory acquisition; it is part of planning and a condition while sanctioning the building plan.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

Building plans can be sanctioned only as per the provisions of the Planning Act and the Regulations framed thereunder; the owner is required to relinquish land for roads, parks and civic amenities to the Planning Authority through a registered relinquishment deed.

¶52

Key takeaways

The learned Single Judge did not take into account Section 17(2A) of the Act and Regulation No.15.3.22 of the Zonal Regulations of the Nelamangala Planning Authority.ratio¶52
The view taken by the learned Single Judge that the Planning Authority wants to acquire the land compulsorily without paying compensation is against the mandate of Section 17(2A) of the Act and is not correct.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (LB-RES) allowed — Karnataka High Court Division Bench (D K Singh & S Rachaiah JJ.; judgment per D K Singh J.), 27.01.2026. The learned Single Judge (order dated 12.09.2024 in W.P. No.4647/2024) had held that the Nelamangala Planning Authority's communication dated 16.12.2023 — directing the Panchayat Development Officer to obtain a relinquishment deed for 697.92 sq.m. of the petitioner's land in Sy.No.76/2, Lakkenhalli Village, so as to secure a 12-meter-wide road before sanctioning her industrial building plan — amounted to compulsory acquisition without payment, violating Article 300A of the Constitution. The Division Bench held that relinquishment of land for roads under Section 17(2A) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and Regulation No.15.3.22 of the Nelamangala Zonal Regulations is a condition of plan sanction and part of planning, not compulsory acquisition; the Single Judge had failed to consider these provisions. An owner seeking plan sanction must comply with these requirements by executing a registered relinquishment deed free of cost. Impugned judgment set aside; writ petition dismissed; pending IAs disposed of.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:4264-DB WA No. 1679 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1679 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NELMANGALA PLANNING AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR AND MEMBER SECRETARY, 2^ND CROSS ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 133.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE (P/H))

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT. GAYATRI LAKSHMIPATHI W/O LAKSHMIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.224, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, VIDHANASOUDHA LAYOUT, LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560 058.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH R.P., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.4647/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO.4647/2024.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:4264-DB WA No. 1679 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶24

Heard Sri Yogesh G. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Manjunath R.P., learned counsel for the respondent.

¶25

The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the writ petition for the sake of convenience.

¶26

The present intra-Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 12.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4647/2024 filed by the petitioner.

¶27

Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession of the property measuring to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.76/2 of Lakkenhalli Village, Soluru Hobli,

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:4264-DB WA No. 1679 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Magadi Taluk. The petitioner had applied for sanction of the building plan before the Planning Authority for Industrial Purpose. As per the Zoning regulations of the Nelamangala Local planning area Master Plan, the Industrial building can be sanctioned where there is a 12 meters wide road. In front of the petitioner’s land the road is not 12 meters wide, the respondent therefore, vide communication dated 16.12.2023, had instructed the Panchayat Development Officer to obtain relinquishment deed for an area of 697.92 square meters from the petitioner for sanctioning the building plan for the Industrial purposes so that there will be a 12 meters wide road in front of the Industrial building of the petitioner. The said communication has been challenged before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has held that the impugned communication dated 16.12.2023 issued by the respondent – Planning Authority would amount to compulsory acquisition of the land of the petitioner without payment and that would be in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:4264-DB WA No. 1679 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the planning regulations, no building commercial/Industrial building would be sanctioned if there is not 12 meters wide road in front of the such proposed building. If the petitioner wants the Industrial building, petitioner has to leave 12 meters wide road in front of her building.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on Section 17(2A) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for the short 'Act'), which mandates that such portion of land which formed the part of the road in layout should be relinquished to the local authority. He has also placed reliance on the Zonal Regulations of the Nelamangala Planning Authority particularly, Regulation No.15.3.22 which reads as under:

¶37

"In case of a plot facing road proposed for widening, the required land as indicated in the master plan for the road widening shall be handed over to the Local Authority free of cost by a "Relinquishment Deed" by the owner of the land before sanction is accorded to his plan;

¶38

a. The FAR (Floor Area Ratio) shall be allowed as applicable to the total area of the site without deducting the area to be taken over for road widening, provided at least 60% of the site area

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:4264-DB WA No. 1679 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

is available for use as a building site after proposed road widening; and set back shall be determined for the remaining portion of the plot."

¶42

We have considered the submissions and perused the

¶43

impugned judgment and order.

¶44

Section 17(2A) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 reads as under:

¶45

“Section 17-2A of the Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961 reads as follows:

¶46

"If the Authority decides to sanction the layout plans under sub-section (2), it shall sanction provisional layout plan in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed for demarcation and development purpose showing the sites, street alignment, (park and playground) and civic amenity area and any other infrastructure facility including the arrangement to be made for leveling, paving, mettalling, flagging, channeling, sewering, draining, street lighting and water supply to the satisfaction of the Planning authority and local authority. One of such plan shall be marked to the jurisdictional local authority. The owner shall relinquish the roads, parks and playground to the local authority and Civil Amenity areas to the Planning Authority, through a registered relinquishment deed free of cost without claiming any compensation.”

¶47

It is suffice to say that the building plans can be

¶48

sanctioned only as per the provisions of the Planning Act

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:4264-DB WA No. 1679 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

and Regulations framed there under. The owner is required to relinquish the land for roads, parks and civic amenities etc., to the Planning Authority. Thus, the owner is required to relinquish the land for the roads, paths and playgrounds in the local authority and civic amenities through the Planning Authority by a registered relinquishment deed. The learned Single Judge has not taken into account the provisions of Section 17(2A) of the Act and Regulation No.15.3.22 of the Zonal Regulations of the Nelamangala Planning Authority.

¶53

The relinquishment of land to have 12 meters wide road is as per the provisions of Section 17(2A) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and Regulation No.15.3.22 of the Nelamangala Planning Authority Regulations. This would not amount to compulsory acquisition of the land as held by the learned Single Judge. It is part of planning and condition while sanctioning the building plan.

¶54

If the petitioner wants to get her building plan sanctioned, she has to comply with the requirement of

¶55

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:4264-DB WA No. 1679 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

the law as provided. Therefore, we are of the view that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the respondent - Planning Authority wants to acquire the land compulsorily without paying the compensation is against the mandate of Section 17(2A) of the Act and not correct. Thus, we set aside the impugned judgment and order and

¶58

consequently, writ petition is dismissed.

¶59

All pending IAs stand disposed of.

¶60

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶61

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶62

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14