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
| 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
AI
Property owners cannot be forced to surrender land without due process and must be compensated under applicable laws if not accepting offered development rights.
Notifications under Section 14-B of the Act are offers for voluntary land surrender; lawful acquisition requires due process if the offer is rejected.
The court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and considering all contentions and documents in accordance with law.
Inordinate delay in land acquisition proceedings renders the action of authorities arbitrary, justifying the quashing of notifications.
Allottees’ rights over land must remain protected despite changes in land acquisition notifications.
The court ruled that if the land is excluded from acquisition, there is no basis for quashing the notification.
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.