CAV ORDER

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ of prohibition restraining the Respondents No.2 and 3 from laying/forming Road on the schedule B property, without following the procedure for acquisition as laid down by the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976;

b. Direct the Respondents No.2, 3 and 5 to grant the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in the form of Development Right Certificate (DRC) as per present policy, if the Schedule B property has to be utilised by the Respondent No.2 for formation of the Road.

b.(i) In alternate to direct the respondents to grant the monetary compensation to the Petitioner in respect of the Schedule B Property as per The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

(This prayer added as per order dated 1.4.2021)

c. Direct the Respondent No.2 to 4 not interfere with the enjoyment of their properties until the Respondent No.1 permits for acquisition of the Schedule B property under the applicable law for land acquisition and Respondent No.3 grants TDR rights to the petitioners.

d. Pass any such order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the case to meet the ends of equity and justice.

2. Ramakrishnaiah, Shobhavathi and Sowmya Shree (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “owners”) were the absolute owners of land bearing Sy. No. 25/4 situated at Nayandahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 4 acres and 33 guntas. The said land had been converted for non-agricultural residential purposes pursuant to the Official Memorandum dated 29.01.2010. The property falls within the jurisdiction of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as “BBMP”), which had issued khata in favour of the owners, pursuant to which property taxes were regularly paid.

3. Thereafter, the owners entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 16.04.2010 with Petitioner No.1 for development and construction of a multi-storied residential building on the aforesaid property. In furtherance thereof, the owners also executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Petitioner No.1 on 16.04.2010. Pursuant thereto, Petitioner No.1 secured licence and plan sanction from BBMP on 03.07.2012 bearing LP No. JDTP (S) LP/42/2010-11 (hereinafter referred to as the “plan sanction”), and thereafter commenced and completed the construction.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the residents residing on the rear portion of the aforesaid property, namely on the northern and western sides, approached BBMP seeking the formation of an access road through the Petitioner’s property for ingress and egress. The local Corporator and officials of BBMP are stated to have requested the Petitioners to leave a portion of the land for road formation. Believing the representations allegedly made by the BBMP officials that compensation would either be paid at prevailing market value or Transferable Development Rights (“TDR”) certificates would be issued, the Petitioner agreed to leave a portion of the land for formation of the road.

5. The Petitioner contends that, based on representations made by local residents, the local Corporator addressed a communication dated 14.02.2012 to the Joint Commissioner, BBMP, West Zone, stating that the Petitioner was willing to relinquish a 30-feet-wide strip of land for road formation and recommending issuance of TDR certificates in respect thereof. Thereafter, by communication dated 12.03.2012, the Petitioner informed BBMP of its consent to surrender the land for formation of the road, subject to grant of TDR certificates in the ratio of 1:3 or payment of compensation at the prevailing market value of Rs.7,000/- per square foot. A survey of the property was subsequently conducted and the extent of land required for formation of the road was identified.

6. Respondent No.4 – Executive Engineer, BBMP, thereafter submitted a