- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20667 WP No. 36287 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.36287 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1 . SRI. GIRIDHAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE JAYARAM SHETTY R/AT 'KAMAL SAGAR', SAGAR COURTS KALBHAVI LANE, KOTTARA MANGALURU-575 006. 2 . MRS. RAZIA SHAIKH W/O LATE BOLAR HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO.104/B, SANSKAR APARTMENT JUHU CHURCH ROAD, JUHU MUMBAI-400 049, MAHARASHTRA. 3 . MRS. FOZIA SHAIKH W/O SHOAIB SHAIKH D/O LATE BOLAR HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT A/10/104 A1-MUNA CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY OSHIWARA, MILLAT NAGAR ANDHERI WEST, AZAD NAGAR MUMBAI-400 053, MAHARASHTRA. 4 . MRS. NAZIMA SHAIKH W/O AFTAB ALI D/O LATE BOLAR HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT #E BLOCK 11/05, PLATINUM CITY Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20667 WP No. 36287 of 2024 H.M. MAIN ROAD C.M.T.I. OFFICE, PEENYA BANGALORE-560 022. 5 . MRS. SHAHEEN MOHAMMED SHAIKH W/O ASHLAM BANGI D/O LATE BOLAR HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.104/B, SANSKAR APARTMENT JUHU CHURCH ROAD, JUHU MUMBAI-400 049 MAHARASHTRA. 6 . MRS. SHANAZ SHAIKH W/O QADEER SHAIKH D/O LATE BOLAR HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.104/B, SANSKAR APARTMENT JUHU CHURCH ROAD, JUHU MUMBAI-400 049 MAHARASHTRA. 7 . MRS. FARZANA JAVED SHAIKH W/O JAVED SHAIKH D/O LATE BOLAR HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.104/B, SANSKAR APARTMENT JUHU CHURCH ROAD, JUHU MUMBAI-400 049 MAHARASHTRA PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 7 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER PETITIONER NO.1 HEREIN SRI. GIRIDHAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE JAYARAM SHETTY. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20667 WP No. 36287 of 2024 AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. 2 . THE MANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY URVA STORES, ASHOK NAGARA POST MANGALURU -575006 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3 . THE CORPORATION OF CITY OF MANGALORE POST BOX NO.756 LALBAGH, MANGALURU-575 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.K. KENCHGOWDA, AGA., FOR R1; SRI HAREESH T. BHANDARY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI H. PAVANA CHANDRASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT/LETTER NO. MANAPA/NAYOSA/OTHER/201/2023-24 DATED 19.09.2024 (ANNEXURE-X) ISSUED BY THE MANGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN, ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20667 WP No. 36287 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by the petitioners seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement/letter dated 19.09.2024 issued by the respondent No.2/Mangalore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) as per Annexure-X and consequently, direct the respondent No.2 to process the claim of the petitioners for grant of transfer of development rights (TDR) and accordingly, issue development rights certificate. The petitioners have also sought for a direction against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay interest at the rate of 16% per annum on the value of TDR from 17.01.2024 i.e., from the date of relinquishment deed till the date of issue of DRC. The petitioners are also seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from respondent Nos.2 and 3 on account of arbitrary action of respondent No.2/MUDA. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20667 WP No. 36287 of 2024 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: Pursuant to Government notification/public notice dated 17.08.2022 for establishing a solid waste management facility in the jurisdiction of Mangalore City Corporation, petitioner Nos.2 to 7 who are the original owners expressed their reluctance to accept the TDR. It is precisely at this juncture, petitioner No.1 stepped in and entered into an agreement of sale with petitioner Nos.2 to 7 and accordingly paid entire sale consideration of Rs.10 Crores and obtained an agreement to sell dated 19.01.2023 which is evidenced at Annexure-B. Pursuant to notification dated 23.03.2023 published in the Gazette dated 14.06.2023 as per Annexure-C, petitioner Nos.2 to 7/land owners executed a relinquishment deed dated 17.01.2024 evidenced at Annexure-G. Petitioner No.1 who paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.10 Crores has signed this relinquishment deed as a consenting witness. Pursuant to execution and registration of relinquishment deed dated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20667 WP No. 36287 of 2024 17.01.2024, respondent No.3 sent a letter of recommendation addressed to respondent No.2 on 29.01.2024. Petitioners grievance is that the then Commissioner of respondent No.2 demanded bribe from petitioner No.1 and this lead to filing of a complaint with the Lokayukta on 22.03.2024. Petitioners allege that respondent No.2 only to protract the proceedings and to harass the petitioners, addressed the impugned endorsement to the Secretary, Government of Karnataka purporting to seek a clarification as to whether solid waste management can be considered to be public purpose under Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Feeling aggrieved by the said endorsement, the captioned petition is filed. 3. Respondent No.3/Corporation has filed statement of objections and has supported the petitioners - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20667 WP No. 36287 of 2024 claim contending that it has already sent two recommendations. 4. Per contra, respondent No.2 has contested this petition by filing statement of objections. Placing reliance on Annexure-R2, respondent No.2 has justified its action and issuance of endorsement vide Annexure-X contending that this is a fit case where clarification is warranted to ascertain whether setting up of solid waste management falls within the definition of "public purpose" defined under explanation to Section 14-B of the Act. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 6. Section 14-B of the Act, 1961 provides a statutory mechanism for awarding development rights in lieu of surrender by land owners without compensation. Explanation (j) to Section 14-B clarifies the meaning of "public purpose" and includes inter alia development of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20667 WP No. 36287 of 2024 infrastructure and facilities essential for urban governance and administration. 7. Sub-section (5) of Section 14-B of the Act cast a mandatory obligation on the planning authority to issue development rights certificate upon receipt of recommendation of local authority. This Court deems it fit to cull out sub-Section (5) of Section 14-B of the Act which reads as under: "(5) The Planning Authority before issuing Development Rights shall verify and notify the details of Area surrendered in the newspaper calling objections and suggestions, if any, for the purpose of Development Rights and the Development Rights intended to be issued, after satisfying itself beyond doubt that the persons claiming Development Rights is entitled for the same." 8. The language of sub-section (5) is unequivocal and does not vest any discretionary power in the planning authority namely respondent No.2 to question or re- evaluate the public purpose upon validity of the land surrendered. Once the State Government has initiated the process of establishing solid waste management facility - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20667 WP No. 36287 of 2024 and the respondent No.3/Corporation in furtherance of such Government notification, has obtained the relinquishment deed evidenced at Annexure-G from the petitioners without compensation, respondent No.2/MUDA is duty bound to issue corresponding development rights. The statutory frame work does not contemplate a secondary review by the respondent No.2/planning authority; rather, it merely functions as the implementing arm for issuance of the certificate. Any attempt by the respondent No.2 to withhold or delay issuance of DRC certificate on the pretext of seeking legal opinion or questioning the purpose of the project which is evidenced at Annexre-R2 is ultra vires the Statute, it defeats the legislative intent behind Section 14-B and this is a classic case of dereliction of its statutory duty. 9. Due to arbitrary action of respondent No.2, it is the petitioner No.1 who is seriously prejudiced. While respondent No.3/Corporation has sent two recommendations which is evidenced at Annexures-H and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20667 WP No. 36287 of 2024 AC, the respondent No.2 with clear and oblique motive has issued the endorsement evidenced at Annexure-X. Petitioner No.1 having entered into an registered agreement of sale with petitioner Nos.2 to 7 has paid substantial sum of Rs.10 Crores towards full sale consideration for the land that has been relinquished in favour of respondent No.3/local authority for the public purpose of establishing a solid waste management facility. This significant financial investment highlights the petitioner No.1's legitimate interest and entitlement to the development rights of approving from such relinquishment under Section 14-B of the Act, 1961. 10. The impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2/authority in withholding the development rights without legal justification has clearly cast serious and irreparable prejudice to petitioner No.1, who has acted in good faith and in furtherance of public project. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20667 WP No. 36287 of 2024 11. The conduct of respondent No.2/authority in denying development rights arbitrarily and contrary to statutory mandate violates the mandate cast on respondent No.2 under sub-section (5) of Section 14-B. When the Statute provides a clear and non-discretionary mechanism for the grant of development rights upon surrender of land without compensation, the respondent No.2 was expected to act in accordance with law and therefore, this Court condemns the action of respondent No.2 in virtually frustrating statutory entitlements through unilateral and unjustified action. 12. The respondent No.2's claim that solid waste management does not constitute a public purpose is wholly untenable. It is a matter of settled law that environmental sanitation, solid waste management and also waste disposal are essential municipal functions forming an intrinsic part of public duties. Therefore, reliance on Annexure-R2 by respondent No.2 was unwarranted and the endorsement was obviously issued - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20667 WP No. 36287 of 2024 with oblique motive. The respondent No.2 was required to issue development rights certificate on receipt of recommendation from respondent No.3/local authority. The delay and refusal by respondent No.2 to issue DRC amounts to denial of statutory right conferred under Section 14-B and therefore, the endorsement issued vide Annexure-X is liable to be set aside. 13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 19.09.2024 vide Annexure-X issue by respondent No.2/MUDA is hereby quashed; (iii) The respondent No.2/MUDA is hereby directed to issue development rights certificate in favour of petitioners in accordance with Section 14-B of the 1961 Act within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20667 WP No. 36287 of 2024 (iv) This exercise shall be accomplished by respondent No.2 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38