THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN W.P.NO.35325/2015 DATED 08.11.2024 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

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 the