1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 58758 OF 2017 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1 . THE PRESIDENT SRI RADHAKRISHNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD KADIRENAHALLI, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK NO.692(OUT HOUSE) 10TH A MAIN ROAD 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560011. 2 . THE SECRETARY/DIRECTOR SRI RADHAKRISHNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD KADIRENAHALLI, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK NO.692(OUT HOUSE) 10TH A MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011. 3 . THE DIRECTOR SRI RADHAKRISHNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD KADIRENAHALLI, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK NO.692(OUT HOUSE) 10TH A MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. OMPRAKASH .B.V., ADVOCATE) 2 AND: 1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD BANGALORE-560001. 2 . THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA .B, AGA FOR R1; SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA GAZETTED NOTIFICATION DATED 14.04.2016 DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT NOTIFICATION NO. NA/AH/E302 MNU 2012 BANGALORE DATED 5.11.2015 BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE PARK SL.NO.329, SOUTH DIVISION, WARD NO.182, PADMANABHANAGAR, RADHAKRISHNA LAYOUT PARK, VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.07.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V. ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed by Sri. Radhakrishna House Buyilding Co-Operative Society, 3 represented by its President and Directors(hereinafter referred to as "Society") challenging the Gazette Notification dated 14.04.2016, whereby certain civic amenity sites situated in the layout formed in Survey Nos.62 and 63 have been notified as park area. The petitioners seek a declaration that Respondent No.2/Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) cannot assert any right or claim over the civic amenity sites reserved in the approved layouts formed by the Society in lands bearing Survey Nos.45, 46, 62, and 63, in the absence of acquisition proceedings. 2. The petitioners/Society, aggrieved by the issuance of the impugned Gazette Notification (Annexure- H), contend that while obtaining layout approval from the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) in 1973 for Survey Nos.63 and 64, two civic amenity sites were earmarked in compliance with statutory requirements. However, the Society asserts that the ownership of the said sites has at all times remained with the Society and 4 that the sites were reserved for specific civic purposes such as the establishment of an educational institution, community hall, hospital, cultural centre, and shops. It is their case that the subsequent unilateral action by the State Government in notifying these sites – which are part of an approved private layout – as 'park area' and handing them over to the BBMP, without following due process of acquisition, is legally unsustainable and without authority of law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/Society, reiterating the averments in the petition, placed reliance on the following judicial precedents to fortify the contention that in the absence of acquisition, the State or its instrumentalities cannot divest the Society of its proprietary rights over the civic amenity sites: (i) The Residents of MicoLayout V.s. JSS Mahavidyapeeta - W.A.No.6869/1996; (ii) B.V. Omprakash V.s. State of Karnataka - W.P.No.27224/2014; 5 (iii) Jayanagar House Building Cooperative Society V.s. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike - W.P.No.7842/2022; (iv) Dr. Arun Kumar B.C. V.s. State of Karnataka & Others - W.P.No.9408/2020; (v) Manjunath R. V.s. Doddabylakhana house Building Cooperative Society Ltd and Others - W.P.No.8570-73/1999; (vi) Smt. Shubashekar V.s. BDA - W.A.No. 3703/2012; (vii) V.S.Balasubramanyam V.s. BDA - W.P.No.6450/2013; (viii) Chet Ram Vashista V.s. Municipal Corporation of Delhi - AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 430; (ix) Shobha Developers Ltd, V.s. State of Karnataka and others - (2013) 3 KANT.LJ 229; (x) Munibyrappa V.s. State of Karnataka - ILR 2018 KAR 300; (xi) H.A.Balaji V.s. State of Karnataka - ILR 2011 KAR 2727; (xii) Smt. Mangala Gowri V.s. H.N.Keshavamurthy - ILR 2001 KAR 3249; (xiii) V.Prabhakar V.s. State of Karnataka - ILR 2002 KAR 3533; Referring to the judgments relied upon, learned counsel for the petitioners/Society would vehemently contend that 6 in the absence of either a relinquishment deed or acquisition proceedings, neither the State Government nor BBMP possesses the authority to notify the civic amenity sites as park area. It is asserted that the Society continues to retain title, possession, and control over the said civic amenity sites, which were earmarked in the approved layout for specific civic purposes. On this premise, the learned counsel prays for quashing of the impugned Gazette Notification. 4. Per contra, respondent No.1/State has filed a detailed statement of objections. Learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), reiterating the contents of the objections, submits that respondent No.2/BBMP prepared a comprehensive list of parks, playgrounds, and open spaces situated within its jurisdiction, which was submitted to the State Government for approval as mandated under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Parks, Play-fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1985. 7 5. The learned AGA further submits that, upon receipt of the list, the State Government issued a public notice through a Gazette Notification dated 10.01.2013, inviting objections from the public. In response, the petitioners' Society submitted objections specifically in relation to the proposed playground area at Sl.No.329. After due consideration of the objections received, the State proceeded to notify the civic amenity sites located in Survey Nos.62 and 63 as park area. 6. In this background, the learned AGA contends that the Society’s claim of continuing ownership over the civic amenity sites, despite the statutory approval of the layout and absence of express relinquishment, is untenable. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition as being devoid of merit. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA appearing for respondent/State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/BBMP. 8 8. The following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether petitioners/Society can claim right over civic amenity sites contrary to the layout approval sanctioned by the City Improvement Board in respect of Survey Nos.62 and 63 wherein two sites are reserved for civic amenities purposes? (ii) Whether petitioners/Society having failed to release these civic amenities sites in favour of the Planning Authority can assert title over the same? FINDINGS ON POINT Nos.(i) and (ii): 9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners/Society had secured approval of the layout from the then City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) in the year 1973. It is also admitted that, as part of the sanctioned layout plan, certain portions of the land were earmarked as civic amenity (CA) sites. It is a well-settled principle of law that once a layout is sanctioned by a competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 or the Karnataka 9 Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, any land earmarked for roads, parks, open spaces or civic amenities in the approved layout stands statutorily dedicated for public purposes. The act of approval itself, which includes demarcation of such areas in the sanctioned layout, amounts to implied dedication of those lands for public use. 10. Once such dedication takes place through statutory sanction, the ownership rights of the developer or original landowner over the earmarked areas stand extinguished to that extent. There is, therefore, no requirement for an express or registered relinquishment deed, as the statutory scheme operates independently of and overrides the necessity for formal conveyance. The legal consequence of layout approval is that such designated areas vest with the local planning authority or the municipal body by operation of law, and the developer or Society is estopped from subsequently asserting any ownership or proprietary claim over the same. This 10 principle has been consistently upheld by the Courts with a view to safeguard public spaces and prevent encroachment or misuse of lands reserved for civic and community welfare. 11. In the instant case, while it may be true that the Planning Authority failed to obtain a registered relinquishment deed in respect of the civic amenity sites situated in Survey Nos.62 and 63, such lapse on the part of the authority does not create a legal vacuum or confer any right on the petitioners/society to reclaim or reassert ownership over lands already earmarked for public purpose. The law is clear that once open spaces or civic amenity sites are demarcated in an approved layout, they stand dedicated for public use, and such dedication is enforceable notwithstanding the absence of a formal deed of relinquishment. The statutory dedication flows from the sanctioned plan and the layout approval itself. The Planning Authority or the concerned Urban Local Body 11 holds such spaces in trust for the benefit of the public, and any private claim over such areas is impermissible in law. 12. This legal position has been reaffirmed by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Mohan Vasudev Chavan v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [W.P. No.102318/2016, decided on 29.08.2023], where it was held that once land is designated as a civic amenity site or open space in a sanctioned layout, neither the local authorities nor the original landowners have any unfettered right to alter, alienate, or encroach upon such lands. The Court emphasized that planning authorities must act as custodians of these designated spaces and are under a legal obligation to preserve them in accordance with the sanctioned plan. It was further observed that permitting reassertion of proprietary rights over such spaces would defeat the very object and scheme of town planning and erode the statutory mandate intended to serve the larger public interest. 12 13. In view of the authoritative pronouncements and the statutory scheme governing urban development and planning, the petitioners' admission regarding approval of the layout and the demarcation of civic amenity sites is fatal to their claim. The moment the Society secured approval of the layout with designated civic amenity sites, it lost all proprietary interest over those portions of land. Any claim now advanced by the petitioners/Society to assert ownership or control over the said civic amenity sites is not only legally unsustainable, but also contrary to the settled principles of town and country planning jurisprudence. Entertaining such claims would undermine the integrity of the layout approval process and encourage attempts to reclaim lands intended for community and public welfare. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the petition, which is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. Accordingly points (i) and (ii) are answered in the negative. 13 14. For the foregoing reasons, the prayer sought in the captioned petition cannot be entertained. Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB