Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Mr. M. Raju, S/o. Mr. G. Murageppa & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka, Through Addl. Chief Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5075 of 2020 (LB-RES)
Decided On : 20-04-2023
Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 32, (5) - Relinquishment deed - Coerced and forced to surrender their land - Quash notice issued by Chief Engineer, Respondent No.4, directing petitioners to relinquish land and consequently quash relinquishment deed obtained from petitioners – Merely because Petitioners applied for building plan and khatha in order to better use their property they cannot be put at a disadvantage by corporation demanding surrender free of cost - Para 13.
Finding of the Court: It is respondents, who are proposing to widen an existing 24 meter road to a 30 meter road and road would not have been laid by applicant or proposed to be laid - Operative word in Subsection (5) of Section 32 of KUDA is "laid out by him", this 24 feet road is an obligation to be discharged by respondent Nos.2 and 3 for access to citizens - If petitioners had not approached authorities for issuance of khatha or building plan sanction, condition for surrender free of cost would not have been imposed - If such applications were not made, then in event of corporation wanting to widen existing road, it would only have to acquire land required as per applicable law and widen road - Thus merely because Petitioners applied for building plan and khatha in order to better use their property they cannot be put at a disadvantage by corporation demanding surrender free of cost - Petitioners having been coerced and forced to surrender their land free of cost, which could never have been sought for by respondents, relinquishment deed is nonest - Notice issued by respondent No.4 is hereby quashed - Relinquishment deed is also hereby quashed.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs :
1.2. Pass any such order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances, to meet the ends of justice.
2. Site No.46 measuring 60 x 100 feet situated at Durgi Gudi Badavane, Shivamogga was purchased by one Mrs. Girijamma, the mother of the petitioners, on 30.09.1957 under a registered sale deed. On 24.09.1974, a registered partition was effected, out of the said extent, 60 x 50 feet fell to the share of the said Girijamma and the remaining was divided among the petitioners to an extent of 25 x 60 feet in favour of petitioner No.1 and 25 x 60 feet in favour of petitioner No.2.
3. The said Girijamma executed a Will dated 15.11.1991, her share in the plot measuring 60 x 50 feet came to the share of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 equally. Thereafter, the petitioners have been in possession of the aforesaid properties, which have been assigned Khata bearing Nos.519/1379, 520/520/1380, 521/521/1381 and 521/1-1381/1 situated at Ward No.5, Tilaknagar, Shivamogga. The petitioners intending to develop the said lands had sought for amalgamation of the properties, which came to be approved, and a demand for the relevant fee was made. Along with the said demand, a further demand was made that an extent of land measuring 109.80 square meters, that is roughly around 1100 square feet is to be surrendered to respondent No.3 for the purpose of road widening free of cost.
4. The petitioners thereafter approached respondent No.3 for grant of building permit. When again a demand was made for surrender of 109.80 square feet, in view of the said demand and the Khatha not being issued as also plan not being sanctioned, the petitioners were constrained to relinquish the aforesaid land, on which basis a plan came to be sanctioned. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
5. Sri. Siddarth Muchandi, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
5.2. The demand made by respondent Nos.2 and 3 is in the nature of extortion, no such demand could have been made, there being no provision under the law authorizing such a demand. The petitioners, being deprived of the usage of their lands, were constrained to relinquish the same and thereafter immediately challenge the said relinquishment before this Court.
5.3. On the above grounds, he submits that the petition is required to be allowed and reliefs as sought for are required to be granted.
6. Sri. A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that
6.2. the widening of the road is to the benefit of the petitioners.
6.3. The petitioners should therefore voluntarily surrendered their land for such widening.
6.4. In this regard, he relies upon para 6.1(b) of the Zonal Land Use and Regulations formulated by the Shivamogga Urban Development Authority, Shivamogga which reads as under page 26 :
6.1(b). Access Control: Wherever land faces roads with a width of 30 m and above, a buffer of 3m. and a service road of 9m, shall be provided for areas which lies outside the Inner Ring Road. The major roads in the layouts such as 18m and above are to be 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.
Section 32(5) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 does not apply to single plot development, and the authorities are obligated to compensate the landowner for forming a road on h....
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
