The petitioners relinquished an area of 20,800.09 Sq.

meters i.e. 5 acres 14 cents of land in favour of respondent No.3

under Section 14-B of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act

1961 (for short `Act').

In turn, respondent No.3 granted Development Right

Certificate in favor of petitioners in the form of Notional Land

3

equalling 1.5 times of the area of land surrendered. However,

the development right certificate issued in favour of petitioners

was subject to amendment to be effected to Section 14-B of the

Act. Thereafter, Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country

Planning Act was amended, wherein the development right

certificate to be granted in the form of notional land was equal to

two times of the land surrendered. In view of the said

amendment, the petitioners submitted a representation with the

respondent No.3 to issue development right certificate in the

form of notional land to an extent of two times of the total area

of land surrendered.

However, the said application was rejected on the

ground that there is no provision under the Act to grant

development right certificate in favour of petitioners to the

extent of two times of the area of the land surrendered. The

application submitted by the petitioners was not considered by

the 2nd respondent, which constrained the petitioners to

approach this Court in WP No.20329/2021 challenging the

rejection of the application for grant of development right

certificate. This Court by order dated 24.1.2022 quashed the

communication dated 4.9.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent

4

and further directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the

application dated 26.7.2021 in the light of amendment to Section

14-B of the Act and pass appropriate order in accordance with

law. Thereafter the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned

communication stating that the application submitted by the

petitioners for grant of additional Transferable Development

Right (for short `TDR') in terms of the amendment to Section

14B of the Act cannot be considered since the proviso to Clause-

10 of Section 14-B of the amended Act specifies that only those

land owners shall be eligible for benefit of development right

certificate as per the amendment to Section 14B of the Act who

have not been issued with development right certificate five

years or prior to the commencement of the amendment Act,

2021. Taking exception to the same, this writ petition is filed.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that proviso to Clause-10 of Section 14B of the

amendment Act does not take away the right conferred to the

petitioners under amended Section 14-B of the amendment Act.

However, the 2nd respondent misinterpreted the said proviso to

deprive the legitimate right of the petitioners for grant of

additional TDR as specified under Section 14-B of the Act.

5

5.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for

the respondents No.2 and 3 submits that in view of proviso to

Clause-10 of Section 14-B of the Act the Petitioners are not

entitled for additional TDR certificate.

6.

I have examined the submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties.

7.

Section 14-B of the Act was substituted by Act No.38

of 2015 with effect from 10.9.2015, which specifies that if any

Public Authority requires any area for the public purpose, it shall

notify the same in such manner as may be prescribed and the

owner of such area hands over possession of such area free from

all encumbrances to such Public Authority in lieu of any

compensation he is entitled for grant of development right

certificate as specified in the table.

8.

A reading of the table indicates that the development

right certificate in the form of notional land shall be equal to two

times of the total area surrendered for the purpose of parks and

playgrounds. Hence, prior to amendment, the land owners were

entitled for grant of development right certificate in the form of

notional land equal to one and half times of the area of land

6

surrende