IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Hemant Chandangoudar, J.
Dr Arun Kumar B C - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9408/2020
Decided On : 17-03-2022
Property Rights - Building Plan Approval - Road Widening - Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 - Regulations 2015
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought building plan approval from the respondent - BBMP, but were required to surrender property earmarked for road widening in the master plan free of cost as a precondition for approval.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the requirement to relinquish the properties for road widening violated Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the impugned endorsements and circulars issued by BBMP were without authority of law.
Issues: Whether the requirement to relinquish the properties for road widening as a precondition for building plan approval violates Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned requirement violated property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. It also found that the regulations requiring surrender of properties for road widening did not apply to the petitioners' development plans.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned circulars and endorsements, and directed the respondent - BBMP to process the building plan applications within two months.
ORDER
1. Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are similar, the same are taken up together for disposal by common order.
WP No.9408/2020:
2. The petitioner is the owner of property bearing No.79/2 PID No.4308/79/2 measuring 12.08 guntas (13156 sq.ft.) situated in Yeshwvanthpura Hobli, Herohalli, Magadi Road, Bengaluru and out of which, an extent of 235.8 sq. meters (2538 sq.ft.) is earmarked for the purpose of widening of road in future in the revised Master Plan 2015.
3. The petitioner who intends to develop the property for the purpose of construction of the hospital submitted an application with the respondent - BBMP so as to sanction the building plan. The respondent - BBMP issued an endorsement stating that the application submitted by the petitioner for sanctioning of the building plan will be processed only upon the petitioner surrendering the property earmarked for the purpose of widening of road in the master plan free of cost. Hence, this petition.
WP No. 14975/2021:
4. The petitioner is the owner of land bearing site No.23, BBMP Katha No.23, PID No.54-89-23 situated at 100 ft. Ring Road 5th block, 3rd Phase extension, Banashankari III Stage, Bengaluru measuring 3952 sq.ft. and out of which, an extent of 111 sq.meters is earmarked for the purpose of widening of road in future in the revised Master Plan 2015.
5. The petitioner who intends to develop the property for the purpose of construction of a building consisting of basement + ground floor + first floor and second floor submitted an application with the respondent - BBMP so as to sanction the building plan. The respondent - BBMP issued an endorsement stating that the application submitted by the petitioner for sanctioning of the building plan will be processed only upon the petitioner surrendering the property earmarked for the purpose of widening of road in the master plan free of cost. Hence, this petition.
WP No.19736/2021:
6. The petitioner is the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.18/1C/1A/C1/A3 measuring 8 guntas situated at Doddakannalli village, Virthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru, out of which 152.40 sq.ft. is earmarked for widening of the road.
7. The petitioner who intends to develop the property for commercial purposes submitted an application with the respondent - BBMP for sanctioning of the building plan. The respondent - BBMP issued an endorsement stating that the application submitted by the petitioner for sanctioning of the building plan will be processed only upon the petitioner surrendering the property earmarked for the purpose of widening of road in the master plan free of cost. Hence, this petition.
WP No.19737/2021:
8. The petitioner is the owner of property bearing Sy.No.82/2 in Ward No.72, Khatha bearing No. 134/4860/82/1/2 situated at Herohalli village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk admeasuring 10,000 sq.ft. (50 sq.ft x 200 sq.ft.) out of which 109.91 sq. meters is earmarked for widening of road in the revised Master Plan, 2015.
9. The petitioner who intends to develop the property to construct a building consisting of ground + 2 floors submitted an application with the respondent - BBMP for sanctioning the building plan. The respondent - BBMP issued an endorsement stating that the application submitted by the petitioner for sanctioning of the building plan will be processed only upon the petitioner surrendering the property earmarked for the purpose of widening of road in the master plan free of cost. Hence, this petition.
WP No. 14095/2021:
10. The petitioner is the owner of the property bearing Old No.32 and new Municipal Nos.32, its PID No.62-117-32, 32/1 its PID No.62-117-32/1 and 32/2 its PID No.62-117-32/02 present Municipal No.32 having its PID No.62-117-32 (in Ward No. 145 Homebody Nagara) situated at 10th Cross, Wilson Garden Park Area, Bangalore-27 in all measuring 2600 sq.ft. out of which an extent of 719 sq.ft. is earmarked for widening of road in the revised master plan.
11. The petitioner submitted a
The impugned requirement to surrender properties for road widening as a precondition for building plan approval violated property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the Karnat....
Point of Law : petitioners cannot be deprived of their properties earmarked as road in the revised Master Plan, 2015 merely because they intend to develop their properties by obtaining sanctioned bui....
The designation of land for public purposes under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act does not lapse after a specified time, but the rights of property owners must be balanced against long de....
Section 17(2-B) indicates that it is when a plan sanction is granted and road ear-marked in such a plan sanction, said road would have to be surrendered free of cost.
The planning authority cannot claim ownership or deny ownership to the petitioner based on the earmarking of land for road expansion without acquiring the same under the relevant land acquisition law....
The government's power to acquire land for public purposes, the broader interpretation of 'public purpose' in land acquisition matters, and the relevance of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transpa....
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.