Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
D K Singh, S Rachaiah, JJ
Bangalore Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Reddy Shelters Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL NO. 522 OF 2025 (BDA)
(A) Constitution of India - Article 300A - Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act, 1961 - Section 12 - Zoning Regulations, Revised Master Plan 2015 (RMP-2015) - Regulation 7.1.5 - Doctrine of election - Approbate and reprobate - A person cannot accept and reject the same instrument; cannot take advantage of one part while rejecting the other. (Paras 26, 27, 28) - Principle of estoppel - After taking benefit under an order, a party may be precluded from challenging its validity. (Para 28)
(B) The court held that when a benefit (additional FAR) has been obtained and utilized based on a condition (execution of a relinquishment deed), the party cannot later challenge that condition. The requirement of relinquishing the area for the road was under the Zoning Regulations, which were not under challenge. (Paras 26, 29)
Facts of the case:
The appellant (Bangalore Development Authority) challenged a Single Judge order directing modification of a registered Relinquishment Deed. The respondent, a real estate developer, had obtained approval for a residential development plan subject to handing over the proposed Master Plan Road area free of cost. The respondent executed a Relinquishment Deed for 14,029.26 sq.mtrs. for the road and was granted additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 31,517.64 sq.mtrs., which it used to construct 260 additional units. After two years, the respondent sought modification of the deed, claiming the road area was not required.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench found the respondent's conduct amounted to approbation and reprobation, as it had obtained and utilized the benefit of additional FAR. The Bench held the writ petition was not maintainable four years after executing the deed. It set aside the Single Judge's order, found that the respondent was estopped from challenging the deed's conditions, and stated that the concept of acquiescence and the doctrine of election applied. (Paras 25, 26, 28)
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner, having taken the benefit of additional FAR for relinquishing the road area and constructed additional units, is entitled to seek modification of the Relinquishment Deed? (Para 21) (ii) Whether the petitioner, having accepted the sanction plan and its conditions, is estopped from challenging it? (Para 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of approbate and reprobate and estoppel, holding that a party who accepts and enjoys the benefit of an instrument (licence/contract) cannot later challenge its terms. The additional FAR granted for the road area was a material benefit used by the developer, which precluded any challenge to the Relinquishment Deed. (Paras 27, 28)
Result : Writ appeal allowed; impugned Single Judge order set aside. (Paras 31, 32)
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
I BACKGROUND:
1. The present intra Court Appeal has been filed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) impugning the judgment and order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.35325/2015 filed by the respondent No.1 herein.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid writ petition praying to declare that the 'High-Tech Corridor Road', as prescribed in the Revised Master Plan-2015 (RMP-2015) insofar as the land of the petitioner was concerned, would not serve any useful purpose in view of the order dated 30.07.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.No.10800/2005 and connected matters. The petitioner had also prayed for a direction to the BDA to modify the registered Relinquishment Deed dated 12.08.2013 executed by the petitioner-builder/real estate developer in favour of the BDA insofar as the area for corridor road within the project of the petitioner and further direction to the BDA to re-transfer the extent of land reserved for the 'High-Tech Corridor Road' in the petitioner's property.
4. The writ Court, initially, in its first judgment and order dated 10.01.2019, held that the land acquisition proceedings for the Project, 'High-Tech City' was quashed vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.No.10800/2005 and other connected matters and the relinquishment deed had been executed and registered little more than five years thereafter. The petitioner could not be allowed to fall back upon the ground that the acquisition was quashed for avoiding the contract of relinquishment. Sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) of the said order dated 10.01.2019 are extracted hereunder:
"a) The acquisition in question was quashed on 30.07.2008 by virtue of the judgment mentioned above whereas the relinquishment deed has been executed and registered a little more than five years thereafter. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of quashment of the acquisition. Therefore, he cannot bank upon the ground of acquisition for avoiding the contract i.e, the Relinquishment.
b) The Relinquishment Deed being a contract that has already been executed, the grounds available for avoiding the same cannot be the subject matter of adjudication in writ jurisdiction, since, they involve disputed questions of facts that can be determined only in a full pledged trial of suit.
c) For grant of the prayer of the kind i.e., declaratory relief, the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case more particularly he has not shown the justiciable right and its infringement by the action of the respondents herein. Therefore, the condition precedent for maintaining a writ petition being not complied with, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
d) Petitioner had made a similar request worded little differently in his representation which has been rejected by the City Planning Member of the respondent-BDA vide endorsement dated 06.02.2015 at Annexure-K. No quashment of this endorsement has been sought for, nor any explanation is offered for not impugning the same.
e) Lastly, petitioner having conveyed the land by virtue of the registered Relinquishment Deed in favour of the respondent BDA; his reliance on the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 is not well founded and therefore, no relief can be granted for the alleged violation thereof.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions fail and they are disposed off reserving to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court or other competent authority for the redressal of his grievance. The observations made hereinabove, being confined to the disposal of this writ petition, nothing therein shall be construed as deciding rights of the parties on merits and therefore, all contentions shall be treated as having been kept open for adjudication in accordance with law."
5. The Division Bench, vide judgment
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
