- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20859 WP No. 2512 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.2512 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: R KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE RAMKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 59. MALLATHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE 560056 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHANU PRASAD K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BANGALORE 560001. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA., AGA FOR R1 SRI. K.B.MONESH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20859 WP No. 2512 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R-2 BBMP TO PAY THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AT THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE IN RESEPCT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER WHICH HAS BEEN MADE USE OF THE PURPOSE OF ROAD WIDENING AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent in not considering petitioner's representation dated 13.11.2024. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondent-BBMP. 3. The petitioner has submitted a detailed representation, as evidenced at Annexure-F, seeking compensation on the ground that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), while undertaking the formation of a public road, has encroached upon and utilised a portion of land belonging to the petitioner. To substantiate this allegation, the petitioner has produced a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20859 WP No. 2512 of 2025 sketch, marked at Annexure-E, which prima facie demonstrates that approximately 6 guntas of the petitioner’s private land has been used for the said road formation. In the body of the writ petition, it is specifically averred that adjoining landowners, whose properties were similarly affected, have been compensated through the issuance of Transferable Development Rights (TDR). However, the petitioner's grievance remains unaddressed, with no action taken on the representation submitted. 4. Upon perusal of the records, this Court finds that there is a manifest failure on the part of respondents No.2 and 3 to discharge their statutory duty in considering and deciding the petitioner's representation in accordance with law. The facts on record disclose a prima facie case of unequal treatment and discrimination inasmuch as the petitioner, who asserts that 6 guntas of his private land has been taken for the formation of a public road, has not been accorded the same benefit extended to other similarly placed landowners. The State and its - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20859 WP No. 2512 of 2025 instrumentalities, including local authorities such as BBMP, are bound by the constitutional mandate under Article 300A, which protects the right to property. It is a settled principle of law that no person can be deprived of his private property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Utilisation of private land without initiating acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, or any other enabling legal framework, amounts to an illegal deprivation of property and is impermissible in law. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, on instructions, submits that the petitioner's representation will be duly considered in accordance with law, and that if it is ascertained upon verification that the petitioner's land has indeed been utilised for the formation of the public road, appropriate and necessary orders will be passed, including the extension of TDR benefits or compensation as per applicable rules and guidelines. This - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20859 WP No. 2512 of 2025 assurance is recorded, and the Court expects the respondents to act promptly and fairly in discharging their statutory obligations. 6. Recording the submission, this Court passed the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, particularly taking note of the sketch furnished by the petitioner, which is produced at Annexure-E. (iii) If, upon conducting a proper enquiry and spot inspection, respondents No.2 and 3 find that 6 guntas of land belonging to the petitioner has been utilized for the formation of a road, they shall take appropriate steps and pass necessary orders to confer Transferable Development - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20859 WP No. 2512 of 2025 Rights (TDR) in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land so utilized. (iv) In the event it is found that TDR cannot be granted for any reason, the respondents shall initiate proceedings for acquisition of the said extent of land and pay compensation to the petitioner in accordance with law. (v) The entire exercise, including enquiry, inspection, and passing of appropriate orders, shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE KLY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3