IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.
D.V. Venkateshappa S/o Chikkavenkataswamy – Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 1402, 1440, 8009, 8129, 8158, 8244, 8257, 8270, 8358, 13807 of 2021
Decided On : 05-04-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 12, 300A – Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 – Section 14B – Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2021 – Amendment Act, 1969 –Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 115 – Mandamus – Compensation or damages – Deprivation of the right – Right to property – Petitioners happen to be erstwhile owners of lands comprised in subject Relinquishment Deeds – Writ petitions principally contending that the lands are no longer required and that the same will be returned to the land owners – Para 4.
Finding of the court: Argument is attractive, at the first blush – However, a deeper examination robs off all its attraction – As already mentioned above, letter of Government granting permission to BBMP for taking the lands in question was issued in 2011 – Acting on assurance, petitioners surrendered their lands years ago – BBMP has been holding on these properties since then – Specific stand is unjustifiably taken by BBMP in their pleadings & submissions that no TDR Certificates can be granted – Added prayer for a direction for consideration of representations is made only as an alternative to principal prayer – Therefore justice will not be meted out by issuance of only a direction to consider representations when stand of BBMP is already known – Petitioners to seek reconveyance of surrendered lands, if they so desire, and if representations to this effect are made, respondent BDA shall reconvey surrendered lands within eight weeks, failing which same cost as prescribed above shall be paid, till that is done, in addition to risking in contempt action.
Results: Ordered Accordingly.
ORDER :
1. All these petitions broadly involving common grievances of the land losers are presented to the Writ Court essentially seeking a direction to the respondent BBMP for issuance of ‘Transferable Development Rights’ (hereafter TDR) or ‘Developmental Rights Certificates’ in respect of lands in question which they have relinquished in favour of BBMP years ago for the formation or widening of roads.
2. After service of notice, the respondent-State and its officials have entered appearance through the learned AGA; the respondent-BBMP and its officials are represented by their Senior Panel Counsel; similarly, the respondent-BDA and its officials are represented by their Senior Panel Advocate. The respondent-BBMP has filed a Statement of Objections in W.P. No. 1440/2021 resisting the claim of petitioners. The said objections are adopted for the rest of petitions too. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate and the Panel Advocates make submission seeking dismissal of the writ petitions principally contending that the lands are no longer required and that the same will be returned to the land owners.
3. FACTS IN BRIEF:
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
(b) For conceptual clarity, it would be profitable to refer to ‘Transferable Developmental Rights, Guidelines For Implementing of TDR Tools for Achieving Urban Infrastructure Transition in India’ (2020) published by the NITI AYOG:
“TDR means an award specifying the Built-Up Area (BUA) an owner of a site or plot can either sell or utilize-in-situ/elsewhere, in lieu of the land foregone on account of surrendering/gifting land free of cost to the ULB’s (Municipal Body, Urban Improvement Trust, Urban Development Authority), required to be set apart for public purpose as per the Master Plan or for road widening, recreational use zone, etc. The award is in the form of a TDR Certificate issued by the Competent Authority. The TDR Certificate inter-alia should mention the area surrendered and the cost of that area as per the circle rate. These certificates are regulated under the building Bye-Laws or in conjunction with TDR guidelines framed by State Governments from time-to-time.....”
With regard to TDR, before TDR was conceptua
Janhit Manch vs. State of Maharashtra
Point of Law : Right to property although is no longer a Fundamental Right after 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, it is constitutionally secured.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the constitutional guarantee of the right to property in the context of transferable dev....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the BBMP is not required to grant Transferable Development Rights (TDR) or compensation for the improvement of already existing roads unless n....
The court established that retrospective application of government directives curtailing vested rights is impermissible unless expressly stated, reinforcing the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
The owner of land reserved for public purposes is entitled to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) if no compensation has been awarded and possession has not been taken by the planning authority, de....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.