2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 26754

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Suraj Govindaraj, J
Shashikumar – Appellant
Versus
Joint Director, Town Planning (South) – Respondent
WP No. 28758 of 2024

A planning authority cannot compel free surrender of privately owned land for widening an existing road under a Master Plan as a precondition for releasing an approved building plan, as this amounts to deprivation of property without authority of law, violating Article 300A.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 300A - Protection of property rights - Deprivation of property save by authority of law - Executive action affecting proprietary interests must be backed by a valid law. (Paras 15.13, 15.22)

(B) Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 - Sections 12, 13, 14, 17, 69 - Master Plan - Layout sanction - Acquisition - Distinction between land forming part of an internal layout (roads, parks, open spaces, civic amenities) and land earmarked under the Master Plan for widening of an existing public road - Mere designation in a Master Plan does not authorise compulsory surrender. (Paras 13.11, 13.12, 13.14, 13.18, 14.14) - Section 69 provides the lawful mechanism for acquisition of land required for public purposes under the Act. (Para 14.17) - Provisions permitting surrender without compensation (Sections 17(2-A), 17(2-B), 17(3)) are confined to roads and civic amenities forming part of the developer's own internal layout; they do not extend to land required for widening an existing external road under the Master Plan. (Paras 12.22, 13.15)

(C) Administrative Law - Colourable exercise of power - A statutory authority cannot use a power conferred for one purpose (regulating development) to achieve a collateral purpose (securing land for public infrastructure) for which no authority exists. (Paras 12.35, 12.36) - 'Authority of law' requires a specific, validly enacted law authorising the deprivation; an administrative communication or executive instruction unsupported by statute is insufficient. (Paras 15.12, 15.13)

(D) Transferable Development Rights (TDR) - Surrender of land for road widening under a Master Plan may be accompanied by grant of TDR, if permissible under applicable planning regulations, as an alternative to formal acquisition; free relinquishment without any form of consideration is not a legally available option. (Paras 16.13, 16.14, 16.20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, owner of a property measuring 2 acres 4.5 guntas, sought modification of a building plan to construct a residential complex. After complying with all statutory requirements and paying prescribed fees, the modified plan was approved on 26.09.2024. However, the respondents withheld release of the approved plan, insisting that the petitioner execute a registered relinquishment deed surrendering 381.70 sq.m. of land free of cost for widening an existing public road (Kanakapura Main Road) from 31 metres to 45 metres under the Revised Master Plan, 2015. The petitioner challenged this demand by way of a writ petition.

Findings of Court:
The respondents have no statutory authority under the KTCP Act, 1961 or any applicable planning regulation to compel free relinquishment of privately owned land for widening an existing road under the Master Plan. The distinction between land forming part of an internal layout and land required for an independent Master Plan infrastructure project is fundamental. The impugned demand is without authority of law, constitutes a colourable exercise of power, and violates Article 300A of the Constitution. The approved plan must be released without insisting on relinquishment.

Issues: The main issues were (i) whether the respondents were justified in insisting on free relinquishment of 381.70 sq.m. of the petitioner's land as a precondition for release of the approved building plan; (ii) whether land under the Master Plan for road widening stands on the same footing as roads, parks, open spaces forming part of an internal layout; (iii) whether the respondents have statutory power to compel such free relinquishment; (iv) whether the action violates Article 300A; and (v) the lawful mechanism available if the land is required for public purpose.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the KTCP Act draws a clear distinction between obligations internal to a development layout (where roads, parks, open spaces can be required to be surrendered free of cost under Section 17(2-A), (2-B), (3)) and land required for sovereign planning functions under the Master Plan (which must be secured through acquisition under Section 69 or through recognised compensatory mechanisms like TDR). The impugned action lacks statutory foundation and amounts to an indirect, colourable deprivation of property without authority of law, violative of Article 300A.

Result: Writ petition allowed. Impugned communication dated 30.09.2024 quashed to the extent it demands free relinquishment. Respondents directed to release the modified sanctioned plan and construction drawings within 30 days without insisting upon relinquishment. Liberty reserved to the respondents to acquire the petitioner's land in accordance with law, if deemed fit.