A relinquishment deed executed in compliance with conditions is binding unless annulled by a court; disputes over its validity must be pursued in civil court.

ORDER :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that the action of BBMP-Respondents No.2 to No.4 in imposing a requirement to relinquish the property belonging to the petitioner designed for road widening in the Master Plan free of cost with the respondent - BBMP as a precondition for issuance of the Occupancy Certificate/sanctioning of the Building Plan is violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently issue a declaration holding the Deed of Relinquishment Dated: 09/06/2016 issued by the petitioner vide Annexure-P as null & void, and unenforceable against the petitioner by the respondent authorities; and

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction, directing the respondents to follow due process of law under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by initiating acquisition proceedings and by paying compensation/TDR, if the respondent authorities intend to use any portion of the property belonging to the petitioner which are earmarked for the purpose of road widening in the Revised Master Plan 2015; and

iii. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, proper, necessary and expedient in the circumstance of the case."

2. The petitioner–company asserts that it is engaged in the business of development works in India and is the owner of property bearing Katha No.948/639/10/11/12/1. The material facts are largely undisputed. The petitioner, being the owner of the said land, submitted an application seeking approval of a sanction plan for construction of a commercial complex. The Planning Authority, by order dated 20.04.2012, accorded approval to the plan subject to standard conditions, including reservation of certain areas for roads.

3. On 09.06.2016, the petitioner executed a registered relinquishment deed whereby the title in the portion of the land earmarked for road widening was conveyed to respondent No.2 – Planning Authority, free of cost and without any claim for compensation. Consequent upon such relinquishment, the Planning Authority issued a sanction plan permitting the petitioner to proceed with construction of a commercial complex. The petitioner further asserts that it had sought modification of the plan, which came to be considered by the BBMP, and the Planning Authority, accordingly, issued a modified sanction plan–cum–occupancy certificate on 02.03.2015. The modified plan–cum–occupancy certificate is produced at Annexure–G.

4. The petitioner, having executed the relinquishment deed (which fact is not in dispute), submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information regarding the commencement of road widening work. The authorities, in response, indicated that no proposal for road widening had been undertaken between Marathalli and Varthur Kodi Junction up to Hope Farm, except for the proposed construction of an underpass at Kundalahalli Junction. 5. The petitioner contends that in view of the endorsement issued by the BBMP indicating that road widening over the subject property had been given up, it made several representations requesting the BBMP as well as respondent No.5 – Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited (KRDCL) to initiate acquisition proceedings for the land required for construction of the grade separator. It is asserted that the petitioner continues to remain in exclusive possession of the property which had