Sri a Venkatesh Vs Greater Bengaluru Authority

SRI A VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS SON OF LATE H C ANNAIAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.44, SRI CHAKRA, VIMANAPURA POST, N.R. LAYOUT, KONNENA AGRAHARA BANGALORE - 560017.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY MS. LEKHA G.D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VACHAN H U., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY 10^TH FLOOR, PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING. MG ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ISSUE THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.04.2025 SUBMITTED BY

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:28737 WP No. 13674 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE PETITIONER (ANNX-F) FILE NO. PRJ 0047/2526/CC/01/NEW WITH RESPECT TO SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner, the owner of an immovable property within the respondent's limits, is aggrieved by the delay in issuance of the Commencement Certificate,

¶27

and therefore he has presented this petition. When the petition was listed on 08.06.2026, Ms. Lekha G D, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued for directions to the respondent placing on record a copy of the Note Sheet Report . This Court has observed that the petitioner's request had been considered by the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner and the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Land Records approved the issuance of the Commencement Certificate but the Assistant Engineer is asking for

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:28737 WP No. 13674 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Relinquishment Deed and resubmission of the application for Commencement Certificate . This Court has called upon the concerned Assistant Engineer to place on record the statutory provision which justifies

¶32

a demand for Relinquishment Deed.

¶33

This Court has also observed that if the request is found to be impermissible under the statute, this Court would also examine why the concerned Assistant Engineer should not be called upon to pay costs. In response, Sri Pawan Kumar, the learned standing counsel for the respondent, files on record an affidavit by the Assistant Engineer who has stated thus relying upon a Circular dated 10.10.2025 issued by the Office of the Chief Engineer, Greater Bengaluru

¶34

Authority.

¶35

"5. I submit in the circular dated 10.10.2025 there is a condition that the road area reserved for widening of the road in RMP-2015 for proposed road has to be relinquished before obtaining commencement certificate or within 60 days from the date of sanction plan/license

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:28737 WP No. 13674 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

[Whichever is earlier]. Hence, the reasons shown in the Note sheet i.e., endorsement dated 02.04.2026 are based on circular dated 10.10.2025. The respondent [GBA/BBMP] hereby submits that the reasons given in the note sheet are based on the circular dated 10.10.2025."

¶40

The Assistant Engineer has also placed a copy of the

¶41

Circular on record.

¶42

It is seen that this Circular is issued in the

¶43

context of issuing e-katha stipulating that an Indemnity Bond may be insisted upon to relinquish the area required while issuing Occupancy Certificate or within sixty days from the issuance of plan and uploading the same on the portal. Ms Lekha G D, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the Orders of this Court on 17.01.2022 in the writ petition in W.P. No.9408/2020 and connected writ petitions [which are disposed of in the light of this Circular dated 29.02.2016] submits that this Court has intervened with the decision based on this Circular

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:28737 WP No. 13674 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

holding that rights in property cannot be denied only on the ground that some portion is marked for road widening in RMP-2015. The learned counsel submits that even in the petitioner's case there is only a proposal without any further proceedings and therefore the Assistant Engineer could not have even asked for an Indemnity Bond.

¶48

Sri Pawan Kumar is heard in the light of these circumstances and the assertion that the petitioner cannot be called upon to file an Indemnity Bond or execute Relinquishment Deed because of this Court's order in the writ petition in W.P. No.9408/2020 and connected matters. This Court, while quashing the Circular dated 29.02.2016 which required the applicants to relinquish the area earmarked for road widening in RMP-2015 has observed thus.

¶49

"24. The Circular dated 29.2.2016 requiring the owners to surrender the properties earmarked for widening of road free of cost at

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:28737 WP No. 13674 of 2026

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

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."

¶54

This proposition is reiterated with the

¶55

decision in other connected matters and there are a series of such decisions with the recent decision dated 01.06.2026 in the writ petition in W.P. No.28758/2024 while answering the question viz., whether the respondents are justified in insisting upon execution of a registered Relinquishment Deed free of cost as a condition precedent for release of modified sanction plan and construction drawings .

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:28737 WP No. 13674 of 2026

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

The petitioner must re-submit plans on the column positions, the retaining wall, ramp and others as would be required in terms of the Note Sheet Report as there cannot be any qualm about these, but the insistence on a Relinquishment Deed or an Indemnity Bond must necessarily be considered in the light of this Court's consistent view as afore. This aspect must be considered by the Chief Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority who has issued this Circular so that there is a reasoned decision on the petitioner being called upon to file either Indemnity Bond or a registered Relinquishment Deed. This recourse would also ensure that there are clear instructions in this regard to the Officers/ Engineers who process the relevant applications stemming repeated petitions on this score. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

[a] The petition is allowed reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this order to the

¶62