Owner cannot be forced to give up land for free: Karnataka high court

Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court has ruled that the erstwhile BBMP, now Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA), is not empowered to compel the relinquishment of privately owned land free of cost for widening a road under the Master Plan.Justice Suraj Govindaraj made the observation while allowing a petition filed by Bengaluru resident M Shashikumar.“If the respondents require the petitioner’s land for widening of the road in public interest, they are required to resort to legally recognised statutory mechanisms… together with payment of due compensation, or grant of TDR wherever permissible under the applicable planning regulations. Free relinquishment without any form of consideration is not a legally available option,” the judge added.Shashikumar entered into a joint development agreement with a private developer with regard to 2 acres and 4.5 guntas of land, situated at Thalaghattapura village, Kanakapura Road. In 2024, he applied for a modified sanction plan for the construction of apartments, after paying Rs 1.3 crore in fees. Though the modified plan was approved on April 26, 2024, it was not released. Instead, the authorities issued an endorsement on Sept 30, 2024, stating that if the petitioner relinquishes 371.8 sq metres (around 4,200 sq ft) of land free of cost for road widening, the modified approved plan would be released. Repeated requests by the petitioner did not yield any result, forcing him to approach the high court.Shashikumar argued that courts in several decisions have already held that a private landowner cannot be compelled to relinquish his land in favour of the state or its instrumentalities without authority of law.On the other hand, BBMP submitted that the proposed widening of the existing road from 31 metres to 45 metres would, in fact, substantially benefit the petitioner, due to improved access and better facilities.However, Justice Suraj Govindaraj refused to accept the defence put forth by BBMP, saying this does not alter the legal position.Incidental benefit flowing from a public infrastructure project cannot extinguish or dilute constitutional protection over a private property. Any enhancement in value arising from road widening may be a factor considered while determining compensation in accordance with law, but cannot justify dispensing with compensation itself, the judge added.“The modified building plan was already approved on April 26, 2024. The demand for relinquishment arose only at the stage of release of the sanctioned documents. Once the respondents had completed scrutiny and granted approval, imposition of a new substantive condition unsupported by law assumes an arbitrary character and further reinforces the constitutional infirmity underlying the impugned action. The action of the respondents in withholding the release of the modified sanctioned plan until execution of a relinquishment deed amounts to deprivation of property without the authority of law,” the judge noted.The land earmarked under the Revised Master Plan-2015, for widening of an existing road does not stand on the same footing as roads, parks, civic amenity sites and open spaces forming part of an internal layout proposed for sanction under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and the applicable planning regulations, Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed while directing BBMP (GBA) to release the modified sanctioned plan and construction drawings without insisting upon relinquishment of any portion of the petitioner’s land within 30 days.However, liberty is reserved for the respondents to acquire the petitioner’s land in accordance with law, if so deemed fit by the appropriate authority.—---BlurbThe court said incidental benefit flowing from a public infrastructure project cannot extinguish or dilute constitutional protection over a private property