IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1679 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

NELMANGALA PLANNING AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR AND MEMBER SECRETARY, 2^ND CROSS ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 133.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE (P/H))

AND: Digitally signed by SMT. GAYATRI LAKSHMIPATHI LAKSHMI T W/O LAKSHMIPATHI, L H o ig ca h t C io o n u :

rt AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, of Karnataka R/AT NO.224, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, VIDHANASOUDHA LAYOUT, LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560 058.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANJUNATH R.P., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.4647/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO.4647/2024.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

1. Heard Sri Yogesh G. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Manjunath R.P., learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the writ petition for the sake of convenience.

3. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 12.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4647/2024 filed by the petitioner.

4. Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession of the property measuring to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.76/2 of Lakkenhalli Village, Soluru Hobli, Magadi Taluk. The petitioner had applied for sanction of the building plan before the Planning Authority for Industrial Purpose. As per the Zoning regulations of the Nelamangala Local planning area Master Plan, the Industrial building can be sanctioned where there is a 12 meters wide road. In front of the petitioner’s land the road is not 12 meters wide, the respondent therefore, vide communication dated 16.12.2023, had instructed the Panchayat Development Officer to obtain relinquishment deed for an area of 697.92 square meters from the petitioner for sanctioning the building plan for the Industrial purposes so that there will be a 12 meters wide road in front of the Industrial building of the petitioner. The said communication has been challenged before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has held that the impugned communication dated 16.12.2023 issued by the respondent – Planning Authority would amount to compulsory acquisition of the land of the petitioner without payment and that would be in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the planning regulations, no building commercial/Industrial building would be sanctioned if there is not 12 meters wide road in front of the such proposed building. If the petitioner wants the Industrial building, petitioner has to leave 12 meters wide road in front of her building.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on Section 17(2A) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for the short 'Act'), which mandates that such portion of land which formed the part of the road in layout should be relinquished to the local authority. He has also placed reliance on the Zonal Regulations of the Nelamangala Planning Authority particularly, Regulation No.15.3.22 which reads as under:

"In case of a plot facing road proposed for widening, the required land as indicated in the master plan for the road widening shall be handed over to the Local Authority free of cost by a "Relinquishment Deed" by the owner of the land before sanction is accorded to his plan;

a. The FAR (Floor Area Ratio) shall be allowed as applicable to the total area of the site without deducting th