Allowed

Sri Malepati Vasu Babu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2026WP/28286/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed writ petitions seeking to quash orders requiring a landowner to surrender land free of cost for road widening. The Court held that surrender is applicable only to sanctioned layouts, not for roads outside the property. The impugned orders were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders directing relinquishment of land were quashed via certiorari; respondents directed to reconsider the application within 60 days.

Sri Malepati Vasu Babu Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:7417 WP No. 28286 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28287 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 28286 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶9

C/W

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 28287 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶11

IN WP No. 28286/2025 BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI MALEPATI VASU BABU S/O. MASTHANAIAH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT.FLAT NO.203, A BLOCK, SRADDA PALMERA APARTMENT, NEAR HORIZAN GURUKUL SCHOOL, KADUBISANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560103.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. VENKATARAMI REDDY E.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AMBEDKAR BEEDI, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶18

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:7417 WP No. 28286 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28287 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

VARTHUR, BANGALORE-560087.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. CHANDINI SINGH., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K.B. MONISH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ORDER NO. ADDL.TP/PR/1338/2022-23 DATED 31.01.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶27

IN WP NO. 28287/2025 BETWEEN:

¶28

SRI NEELAM SRIKANTH S/O VENKATARAMANA NEELAM AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO. 8-5-243 SYNDICATE BANK COLONY BEHIND J P APARTMENT OLD BOWENPALLI, TIRUMALAGIRI HYDERABAD TELANGALA 5000 11

¶29

...PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI. VENKATARAMI REDDY E.,ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AMBEDKAR BEEDI, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶33

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002.

¶34

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, VARTHUR, BANGALORE-560087.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:7417 WP No. 28286 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28287 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SMT. CHANDINI SINGH., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K.B. MONISH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ORDER NO.ADDL.TP/PR/1338/2022-23, DATED 3101-2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶41

THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

The Petitioner in W.P.No.28286/2025 is before this

¶45

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶46

a) Issue writ in nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order vide order No. ADDL.TP/PR/1338/2022-23, dated 31.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 vide at Annexure-A in the interest of justice and equity.

¶47

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order vide Endorsement/shortfall letter dated 20.08.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 vide at Annexure-B in the interest of justice and equity.

¶48

(c) Issue any other direction/orders as deems fit by this Hon’ble Court including the cost of the proceedings in the interest of justice and equity.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:7417 WP No. 28286 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28287 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

The Petitioner in W.P.No.28287/2025 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶53

a) Issue writ in nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order vide order No. ADDL.TP/PR/1338/2022-23, dated 31.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 vide at Annexure-A in the interest of justice and equity.

¶54

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order vide Endorsement/shortfall letter dated 20.08.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 vide at Annexure-B in the interest of justice and equity.

¶55

(c) Issue any other direction/orders as deems fit by this Hon’ble Court including the cost of the proceedings in the interest of justice and equity.

¶56

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the vacant site bearing No.2, BBMP EPID bearing No.1736769893, having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 04.06.2025, subsequent to it, the e-katha has been issued and registered in his name. The petitioner, intending to put up a construction of a commercial ITBT and BPO building along with a residential building, had filed an application before respondent No.2 for sanction of a

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:7417 WP No. 28286 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28287 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

building plan. When the respondent had called upon the petitioner to relinquish/surrender a portion of his property for the purpose of widening of the road as shown in the revised master plan namely RMP 2015 free of cost. It is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶61

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the issue as regards relinquishment for widening of a road situated outside the property of the petitioner has been considered by several Coordinate Benches of this Court. Some of them being order dated 17.01.2022 in W.P.No.9408/2020. He refers to para 26 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference.

¶62

“26. In view of preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that the impugned endorsements issued by the respondent - BBMP requiring the petitioners to relinquish the properties in question free of cost as a condition precedent for processing their applications for sanctioning of building plans is without authority

¶63

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:7417 WP No. 28286 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28287 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

of law and the same violate Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, I pass the following:”

¶66

Relying on Dr. Arun Kumar's case, his submission is that the BBMP cannot call upon the petitioner, the owner of a property to relinquish any property free of cost as a condition precedent for processing the application for sanctioning of plan, and on that basis, the reliefs sought for are to be granted.

¶67

Sri. K. B. Monish Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 had on two earlier occasions sought for time to produce a judgment said to be allowing respondent No.2 to call upon the landowner to relinquish his land free of cost. Despite adequate opportunity having been granted, no such judgment has been placed on record. The reason cannot be far to see inasmuch as there are catena of judgments of this Court which have held that the respondentsAuthorities cannot seek for relinquishment of land for

¶68

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:7417 WP No. 28286 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28287 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

the purpose of formation or widening of a road which is situated outside the property of the petitioner.

¶72

The matter is different if a layout is being sought for sanction under Section 72A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, that land which is within the said layout being sanctioned by the Authorities would have to be relinquished free of cost. That principle would not apply to a road situated outside the property of the petitioner who has sought for a plan sanction, and in this case, it being a single plot plan sanction, which does not require any surrender of roads. Of course, the petitioner would have to comply with all other requirements of the building by-laws and the zonal regulations for the plan to be considered by the respondents.

¶73

In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶74

¶75

NC: 2026:KHC:7417 WP No. 28286 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28287 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

ORDER

¶78

i) Writ petitions are allowed .

¶79

ii) A certiorari is issued, the impugned orders at Annexure - A and B are quashed.

¶80

iii) Respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner in terms of directions issued by this Court in the present matter and that in W.P.No.9408/2020 and pass necessary orders within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶81

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶82

KTY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35

Sri Malepati Vasu Babu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Malepati Vasu Babu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. a Rajkumar @ Babu Vs the Commissioner

Iti Limited Vs the Executive Engineer

Smt Nagamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Bhaskar S Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Putta Ningamma Vs the Commissioner

Arun Kumar K S Vs the State of Karnataka