SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 883

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU 
S SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.
Smt. Shamala C W/o H.K. Venkatesh - Appellant 
Vs.
The State Of Karnataka Department Of Urban Development - Respondent 
Writ Petition No. 13362, 13364, 13366, 13367, 13368, 13371, 13373, 13375, 13377, 13379 Of 2025 (LB-BMP)
Decided On : 02-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Mallikarjunaiah K S., Advocate
For the Respondent:Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA Sri K. Krishna, Advocate Sri B.L. Sanjeev, Advocate

Property owners cannot be forced to surrender land without due process and must be compensated under applicable laws if not accepting offered development rights.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 - Section 14-B - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Petitioners sought to quash a notification for road formation and compensation via Transferable Development Rights (TDR) - Court held that notification was an offer to property owners, establishing criteria for acceptance - Importance of clear notification and voluntary property acquisition discussed. (Paras 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9)

(B) Property Rights - Notion of voluntary surrender of property rights in return for compensation is upheld, and conditions under which acquisition can proceed are clarified. (Paras 4, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners owned individual sites in Bengaluru and objected to a BBMP notification for road formation that necessitated property acquisition without prior monetary compensation or individual consent.

Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged that BBMP could proceed with acquisition only after adhering to legal requirements under the applicable laws, clarifying property rights of the petitioners.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the BBMP's notification and the conditions under which property rights may be affected.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the notification was merely an offer involving voluntary surrender of property, emphasizing lawful acquisition procedures must be followed if owners demand monetary compensation.

Result: Petitions allowed; the impugned notification was not set aside but the rights of the petitioners were preserved until lawful acquisition procedures were followed.

Table of Content
1. court addressed the validity of the bbmp notification regarding property acquisition. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioners raised concerns over lack of notice and the offer of tdr. (Para 3)
3. court clarified bbmp's authority and the need for proper acquisition procedures. (Para 5 , 6)

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 located in Jhansi Enclave, Prakruthi Nagar, Kogilu Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.

2. The petitioners are stated to be the owners of individual sites situated at Jhansi Enclave, 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.13362/2025; at Annexure-'F' in W.P.No.13364/2025; at Annexure-'H' in W.P. No.13366/2025; at Annexure-'G' in W.P.No.13367/2025; at Annexure-'E' in W.P. No.13368/2025, at Annexure-'K' in W.P.No.13371/2025; at Annexure-'H' in W.P.No.13373/2025; at Annexure-'E' in W.P.No.13375/2025; at Annexure-'K in W.P. No.13377/2025; at Annexure-'G' in W.P.No.13379/2025]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 to form road from existing Main Road from Prakruthi Nagar to Gastikempanahalli. Further, to declare any action taken pursuant to the impugned Notification would be of no consequence in the eye of law.

3. It is submitted that the respondent BBMP in exercise of the 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 Kogilu Main Road to Sampige Halli (Jakkur) via Gastikempanahalli 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-'J' in W.P.No.13362/2025; at Annexure-'K' in W.P.No.13364/2025; at Annexure-'J' in W.P.No.13366/2025; at Annexure-'L' in W.P. No.13367/2025; at Annexure-'J' in W.P. No.13368/2025, at Annexure-'P' in W.P.No.13371/2025; at Annexure-'L' in W.P.No.13373/2025; at Annexure-'H' in W.P.No. 13375/2025; at Annexure-'P' in W.P.No.13377/2025; at Annexure-'K' in W.P.No.13379/2025] to the Revenue Minister, Government of Karnataka/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.

4. 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. Benef

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top