ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the respondent vide Annexure-A.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of the property in question and the same was acquired under the registered sale deed dated 02.01.2019 executed by one Smt. Malathi Shetty. The petitioner after purchasing the said property, submitted an application for change of use of land from Solur Township Zone to Industrial Development of Schedule Property. Pursuant to it, on 04.08.2023, the respondent issued an order for change of land from Solur Township Zone to Industrial Development of Schedule Property after paying necessary fees. On 06.10.2023, petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent seeking to issue plan of single unit/plot to develop the schedule property for industrial purpose. Accordingly, on 20.10.2023, the committee of the respondent by its meeting ordered to issue single unit plan for industrial use by imposing a condition that the land kept for road is to be relinquished by executing a deed. On 16.12.2023, the respondent vide communication to the Panchayat development officer to obtain relinquishment deed for an area of 697.92 sq. mtrs. from the petitioner with a free of cost as per Annexure-A. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, filed this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed by the respondent in regard to relinquishing the portion of the property possessed by the petitioner is contrary to article 300 of the Constitution of India. He submits that right to property is just not a statutory right, but same has also been granted as a constitutional right and human right. He submits that in the identical matter, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has set aside single condition imposed by the authority.

The petitioner is entitled for the same benefit.

5. Further, in order to buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance of the order passed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of ARUN KUMAR B.C. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS REPORTED IN ILR 2022 KAR 1461. He submits that the respondent may be directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner without insisting for the execution of deed of relinquishment. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and prays to dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner has submitted an application for approval of single site layout plan. The respondent approved the single site plan subject to for relinquishment of portion of land at free of cost. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in the case of ARUN KUMAR B.C. (referred supra), wherein this Court held that requiring the owners to surrender of the property right earmarked for widening of road free of cost for sanctioning of the building plan is violative of Article 300-A of Constitution of India and further the Co-ordinate bench of this Court has referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.T. PLANTATION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPORTED IN AIR 2011 SC 3430. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the owner of immovable property cannot be deprived of his property by mere executive order without any specific legal authority or supported by competent legislation. In the absence of specific legal authority or support by the competent legislation, the respondents cannot insist the petitioner to surrender the portion of the land free of cost by executing the deed of relinquishment. The condition mentioned in Annexure-A is contrary to Article 300-A of the Constitution of