Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24392
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR. SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
M/S. KRISTAL GROUP – Appellant
Versus
ANEKAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 61887 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SOHANI A HOLLA
For the Respondents: SRI. YOGESH NAIK, SRI. K V PRAKASH, SMT. TANUJA V J., SRI. M. MOHAN KUMAR, SRI. RAMESH BABU
The legal relinquishment of roads in a layout transforms them into public property, restricting the right of the developer to obstruct access.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 - Jurisdiction of Planning Authority - Impugned order directing demolition of compound wall upheld as lawful exercise of jurisdiction. (Paras 11-34)
(B) Relinquishment Deed - Legal effect - Upon execution, roads vested in Planning Authority, transforming their character to public roads not subject to exclusivity by the petitioner. (Paras 22-32)
(C) Sanction Plan - Compliance required for access - Erecting compound walls obstructing access to neighbouring lands violates both the relinquishment effects and the sanctioned condition. (Paras 23-34)
Facts of the case:
The petition challenges a demolition order on grounds of ownership and compliance with layout approvals, asserting compliance to the sanctioned plan in constructing a compound wall.
Findings of Court:
The underlining premise is that the Planning Authority, upon receiving complaints, is empowered to ensure compliance with layout conditions, including public access.
Issues: Core issues included the authority of Planning Authority to issue the demolition order, the impact of the relinquishment deed on ownership of roads, and entitlement of the petitioner to restrict access.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that once relinquished, roads cannot be considered private; the authority has the right to manage public access.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging an order for demolition based on purported ownership. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. approval of the layout plan including a provision for public access. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal validation of public access rights and representation of stakeholders. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. authority's powers in safeguarding compliance with layout sanctions. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. addressing the statutory implications of a relinquishment deed. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. potential trespass implications of blocking public access post-relinquishment. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 32) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 11-11-2016 (Annexure-L) passed by Respondent No.1/Planning Authority, whereby the petitioner was directed to demolish the compound wall constructed around its layout situated at Yamare Village, Sarjapur and Anekal Taluk.
2. The petitioner asserts that it is the absolute owner in possession of lands measuring 17 acres 18 guntas and an additional 1 acre 6 guntas, collectively referred to as the scheduled property. The petitioner obtained layout approval on 10-11-2005 from the Bengaluru Metropolitan Area Development Authority (BMADA) for development of a housing layout in respect of 17 acres 24 guntas of the property.
3. Subsequently, the Anekal Planning Authority (Respondent No.1) approved a modified layout plan for the entire scheduled property and issued a commencement certificate. Both the BMADA and Respondent No.1 approvals contained Clause 11, stipulating that existing access from the layout roads to neighboring lands shall not be restricted.
4. Relying on the sanctioned plan (Annexure-C), the petitioner contends that the plan itself depicts a compound wall around the layout with gates for ingress and egress, indicating that the construction of the compound wall was sanctioned from the inception.
5. The petitioner submits that the layout has been developed strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan, without any deviations. Photographs (Annexure-D series) evidencing the development of roads and civic amenities in conformity with the sanctioned plan have been produced.
6. It is contended that there was no suppression or misrepresentation in obtaining sanction, nor any contravention of conditions. Further, no complaints were received against the petitioner until the issuance of the impugned order.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.61/2023 , submits that this Court has held that roads within a private sanctioned layout are not intended as public thoroughfares, and outsiders cannot claim a right of user as a matter of course. It is argued that the compound wall is consistent with the sanctioned plan, and the impugned demolition order is contrary both to the sanction plan and to the law declared by this Court.
8. Learned Counsel has further relied on the Master Plan 2031 (Annexure-P) and the superimposed village map (Annexure-Q), which demonstrate that no public road passes through the petitioner’s property. It is urged that the internal layout roads are private, and neighbouring apartment owners cannot assert any right of access thereto.
9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1 has relied upon the modified plan dated 20.04.2011(Annexure-B), particularly Condition No.11, which provides that roads in the layout shall not restrict connectivity to neighbouring lands.
10. It is submitted that the petitioner executed a Relinquishment Deed on 19-04-2011, thereby relinquishing all rights in respect of roads, parks, and public utility areas in favour of the Planning Authority. Consequently, such areas vested in the Authority, and the petitioner ceased to have any rights over them.
11. Following a complaint dated 09-02-2016 from adjoining landowners alleging obstruction of access, a notice under Section 17(4) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act was issued. Instead of complying, the petitioner approached
