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 new roads are formed on private lands.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 01-09-2014 issued by the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) declining to accept the claim of the petitioner that she is entitled to Transferable Development Rights (‘TDR’ for short) in lieu of what was claimed to be her property and sought a consequential direction to the BBMP to restore the property of the petitioner to its original condition apart from formation of roads and drainage by the BBMP.

2. Heard Sri Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.N. Puttegowda, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows :-

The petitioner claims to be the owner of certain extent of lands in Sy.Nos.34/1 and 48 of Devarajeevanahalli, Ward No.47, Bangalore. It is her claim that the lands initially belonged to her father Mr. Munimarappa who died in the year 1984. A suit for partition and separate possession was filed by the members of the family of Mr. Munimarappa in O.S.No.10099 of 1989. The said suit has been decreed partially. The petitioner challenges the said judgment and decree before this Court in R.F.A.No.791 of 2000. The appeal came to be allowed by the judgment dated 04.06.2008 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was modified to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to 1/4th share in plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. It is claimed that the subject matter of the lis is concerning schedule ‘B’ property, which portion had fallen to the share of the petitioner pursuant to the judgment passed in the aforesaid regular first appeal.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 1st respondent/BBMP framed a scheme by amending the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, inserting Section 14B. Pursuant thereto, a notification was issued on 18.01.2005 providing for grant of TDR by the Municipal Corporation under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. The entire scheme provided for acquisition of private property by consent and for such surrender of the private property to the Planning Authority free from all encumbrances, the Planning Authority would permit development rights in the form of additional floor area which shall be equal to 1½ times the area surrendered. On such notification, the contention of the petitioner is that if an owner refuses to surrender the land, the only way to secure the land was by way of acquiring it under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or 2013, as the case would be.

5. In the year 2002-03, the respondents appear to have made an attempt to make roads, lay drainages and water pipes in the property of the petitioner against which, the petitioner approached the civil Court instituting a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.4303 of 2003. The Court granted an interim order of status quo against the BBMP. Therefore, upto 2008 the respondents never tried to make roads and drainages in the property of the petitioner as the suit was pending adjudication before the competent Court. The suit ultimately came to be dismissed for default in the year 2008 and the BBMP again attempted / started forming roads and drainages in the property which allegedly belonged to the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that taking advantage of dismissal of the suit, the 7th respondent / Executive Engineer of BBMP started to execute the work in the petitioner’s property by issuance of work orders to contractors for formation of roads.

6. The petitioner represented to the BBMP and others not to carry out any work in Sy.Nos.34/1 and 48 situated at D.J.Halli. Even then, it transpires that the BBMP never stopped work of making roads and laying drainages, which drove the petitioner to give several representations to all the respondents herein. On 29-05-2009, the 7th respondent/Executive Engineer of the BBMP addresses a letter to the petiti