Notifications under Section 14-B of the Act are offers for voluntary land surrender; lawful acquisition requires due process if the offer is rejected.

ORDER :

S SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.

The petitions are taken up together and disposed off vide common order, as the impugned notification of the respondent Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) pertains to sites in a layout. viz., Prakruthi Nagar, Kogilu Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.

2. The petitioners are stated to be the owners of individual sites situated at Prakruthi Nagar, morefully described in the Schedule and have filed the present Writ Petitions seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the notification [at Annexure-'E' in W.P.No.13357/2025; at Annexure-'G' in W.P. No. 13392/2025; at Annexure-'G' in W.P. No.13385/2025; at Annexure-'H' in W.P. No.13369/2025] issued in exercise of power under Section 14 -B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to proceed with any demolition or dispossession of the petitioners' properties without following due process of law.

3. It is submitted that the respondent BBMP in exercise of power under Section 14 -B of the Act, has issued notification No.BBMP/CC/PSR(G)/2906/2024-25 dated 08.01.2025 for formation of a proposed 18 meter wide road from Annapoorneshwari Temple to Kogilu Cross towards Sampige Halli (Jakkur) and the Transferable Development Rights ('TDR') is proposed to be issued to the petitioners as compensation for the land acquired.

4. The petitioners are stated to have made out representations [at Annexure-'F' in W.P. No.13357/2025; at Annexure-'H' in W.P. No.13392/2025; at Annexure-'H' in W.P. No.13385/2025; at Annexure-'J' in W.P. No. 13369/2025] to the Land Acquisition Officer and TDR Officer objecting to the acquisition that it would affect their residential property. The petitioners have also raised other contentions, including; the existence of alternate road, no prior individual notice has been issued, no acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act have been initiated and that no monetary compensation is given. At the time of oral arguments, it is further contended that the petitioners are not interested in accepting the TDR being offered for giving up rights in their property.

5. Taking into consideration the contentions raised and the impugned Notification of the respondent BBMP, it would be relevant to note the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in similar factual context in W.P.No.1166/2019 vide order dated 10.04.2019. The relevant observations made by the co-ordinate bench are extracted below:

"7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it is clear that the notification under Section 14 -B of the Act that has been made by the respondent-BBMP is only an offer made to the property owners to give up their properties voluntarily in return for grant of TDR Certificates, which would be in lieu of monetary compensation. In fact, Section 14 -B(6) of the Act would clarify the said position. The said provision reads as follows:-

“14-B. Benefit of development rights.-

(6) If the owner does not agree to surrender his ‘Area’ required by a Public Authority for any public purpose, for the Development Rights and demands for monetary compensation, then the Public Authority may acquire such ‘Area’ by providing compensation as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing.”

8. In light of the provisions of Section 14 -B(6) of the Act, it is clear that, if the petitioner was unwilling to accept the ‘Development Rights Certificates,’ which was being offered in lieu of monetary compensation, the resp