The judgment establishes that the entitlement to TDR for land used for widening existing roads outside the layout is not governed by Section 14B(20) of the KTCP Act 1961, but by compliance with the master plan and relevant regulations.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

1.1. Call for Records;

1.2. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or Order quashing the Endorsement No.MANAPA/NAYOV/TDR/CR-238/2022 dated 15.02.2023(Annexure-D) issued by Respondent No.3 in the interest of justice;

1.3. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No.3 to take steps in accordance with Section 14B of KTCP Act by sending the necessary recommendation, forthwith, to Respondent No.2 And further direct the Respondent No.2 to grant TDR by way of notional land equal to two times the extent of land (Petition Schedule Property) surrendered/relinquished by the Petitioner and issue DRC in favour of the Petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity;

1.4. Direct the Respondents, jointly and severally, to partly interest @ 16% per annum on the rupee value of the TDR(i.e. the rupee value of the notional land granted in the form of TDR as on 06.04.2022) from 06.04.2022 i.e. the date of relinquishment deed till date of issue of DRC in the interest of justice;

1.5. Direct the Respondents, jointly and severally, to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice;

1.6. Grant costs of the proceedings;

1.7. Grant such other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner, having valid right and title over land in R.S.No.20-1, 201BP4 and 39-2, bearing Khata No.2265, totally measuring 18 Acres and 66 cents, situated at Kavoor Village, Mangaluru Taluk. The petitioner had approached respondent No.2 for sanction of layout plan which came to be sanctioned on 19.01.2022. At the time of said sanction, respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner to relinquish the internal roads, parks, civic amenities as also a portion of the land on the east side and the west side for widening of the existing 18 meters wide road, which was so executed by the petitioner.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that such relinquishment deed was executed in the belief that TDR would be issued insofar as the land used for widening of existing road in terms of CDP and Zonal Regulations. The petitioner approached the respondent for such TDR. However, wide impugned endorsement dated 15.02.2023 respondent No.3 contended that there is no provision to issue TDR in view of Section 14B (20) of the Karnataka Town Country Planning Act 1961 (KTCP Act for short). Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

4. The contention of Sri.Anandarama.K., learned counsel for the petitioner is that:

4.1. It is only insofar as internal roads are concerned that no TDR can be claimed by the land owner. However, insofar as the land which is used for widening of any existing road which lies outside the layout sanctioned, then the petitioner would be entitled for TDR in view of such land being used for said widening.

4.2. If at all the said road had been within the layout of the petitioner and benefit of widening of the road within the layout were to be enjoyed by the petitioner and residents thereof, then the petitioner would have surrendered the said land free of cost. Since the petitioner would be entitled for the percentage of the land which has been surrendered to be taken into consideration for the total land which could be used for the sites vis-a-vis the total land which is to be used for roads, civic amenities, parks and open spaces. In as much as, it is only 55 percent of the land which can be used for sites.

4.3. The widening of the existing road on the eastern and western side of the property of the petitioner not coming within such calculations then the TDR would have to be granted by respondent No.2.

5. Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that:

5.1. In terms of sub-section (20) of section 14B of Karnata