Dr G v Palaksha Vs the State of Karnataka

MR. G.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE G.T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.335, 9^TH MAIN, 4^TH PHASE, DOLLARS COLONY, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SMT. KALIGOTLA NITYA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MANJANNA

E

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.13 12:20:33 +0530

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020.

¶18

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER – EAST DIVISION BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HSR BDA COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560102. …RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI M.H. HANEEF, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:8591 WP No. 20701 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

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.

¶24

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:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶26

CAV ORDER

¶27

The petitioners are seeking the following reliefs:

¶28

“(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;

¶29

(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;

¶30

(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

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:8591 WP No. 20701 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 in lieu of compensation for having acquired the Relinquished Property.

¶35

d) Grant such other reliefs to the Petitioners as may be deemed just, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶36

Brief facts:

¶37

The petitioners are the owners/developers of

¶38

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

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:8591 WP No. 20701 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:8591 WP No. 20701 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

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.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the following decisions:

¶49

i. Kukreja Construction Company and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others¹

¶50

(Kukreja Construction Company)

¶51

ii. Srivatsa Developers and others Vs. The Bangalore Development Authority and others² (Srivatsa Developers)

¶52

iii. Sri K. Shrinath Hebbar and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others³ (K. Shrinath Hebbar)

¶53

1 (2024) 14 SCC 594

¶54

2 W.P. No.48258/2018 D.D. 27.05.2022

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:8591 WP No. 20701 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

iv. CNC, Mangalore Kavoor Project Private

¶59

Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and others⁴

¶60

(CNC, Mangalore Kavoor Project),

¶61

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.

¶62

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents

¶63

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.

¶64

Learned counsel for the respondents submits

¶65

that an appeal has been preferred against the order

¶66

3 W.P. No.18535/2022 D.D. 21.08.2023

¶67

4 W.P. No.15148/2023 D.D. 15.11.2023

¶68

5 W.P. No.18626/2022 D.D. 16.11.2022

¶69

7 -

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:8591 WP No. 20701 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

passed in the case of Srivatsa Developers and therefore,

¶73

the relief ought not to be granted or at best, the matter be remitted for consideration.

¶74

This Court has carefully considered the

¶75

contentions urged and perused the material on record.

¶76

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:

¶77

“ 14B. Benefit of development rights.-

¶78

(1) x x x

¶79

(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

¶80

8 -

¶81

NC: 2026:KHC:8591 WP No. 20701 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

formation of layouts or development any land under Section 15 or 17.”

¶84

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:

¶85

“ 17. Sanction for single plot or sub-

¶86

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

¶87

9 -

¶88

NC: 2026:KHC:8591 WP No. 20701 of 2025

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

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.”

¶91

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.

¶92

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.

¶93

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

¶94

10 -

¶95

NC: 2026:KHC:8591 WP No. 20701 of 2025

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

an appeal is stated to have been preferred against the said

¶98

judgment, in the absence of any stay, the judgment continues to hold the field.

¶99

The Apex Court in the case of Kukreja

¶100

Construction Company has held at paragraph Nos.68.1, 68.4 and 70 as under:

¶101

“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)

¶102

“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 19-81994. According to the case of the petitioners, they carried out work of storm water drain for which competition certificate was issued on 173-2003. 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

¶103

11 -

¶104

NC: 2026:KHC:8591 WP No. 20701 of 2025

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

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 28-82009, 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.”

¶107

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)

¶108

“65. In Writ Petition No. 2871 of 2015, the reservation of the land claimed by the petitioners was for DP Road. The possession of

¶109

12 -

¶110

NC: 2026:KHC:8591 WP No. 20701 of 2025

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

the developed portion of the reserved land was taken over by the said Corporation on 29-72004. 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

¶113

13 -

¶114

NC: 2026:KHC:8591 WP No. 20701 of 2025

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

abandonment of their right, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this petition.”

¶117

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 thirdparty 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

¶118

14 -

¶119

NC: 2026:KHC:8591 WP No. 20701 of 2025

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

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.”

¶122

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:

¶123

ORDER

¶124