- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43004 WP No. 12124 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.12124 OF 2023 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI UDAY KUMAR S/O SHRI DATTA GURUNATH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2459-GH, 16 ‘D’ MAIN, HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560038. 2. SMT. PADMAVATHI B.U. W/O SHRI UDAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2459-CH, 16 ‘D’ MAIN, HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560038. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ROHIT V.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43004 WP No. 12124 of 2023 BENGALURU-560027, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB #14/3, 1ST FLOOR, MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560009. (IMPLEADED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 16.06.2023) 3. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002. (IMPLEADED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 22.11.2024) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISH N.N., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI MANJUNATH N.D., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DECISION OF THE BBMP AS CONTAINED IN ITS LETTERS DATED 28.10.2022 (ANNEXURE-G) AND 11.10.2022 (ANNEXURE-L) AND ORDER DATED 03.09.2022 (ANNEXURE-M) REJECTING THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS ON THE UNACQUIRED PORTION OF PROPERTY AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43004 WP No. 12124 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioners in this Writ Petition are seeking for the following reliefs : a. By issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quash the decision of the BBMP as contained in its letters dated 28.10.2022 (Annexure-G) and 11.10.2022 (Annexure-L) and Order dated 03.09.2022 (Annexure M) rejecting the plan submitted by the petitioners on the unacquired portion of property; b. By issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order direct the BBMP to sanction the plan submitted by the petitioners in the light of the fact that the proposal to construct drains after acquisition for the 1st respondent was never disclosed at the time of acquisition; OR c. Direct the respondents to compensate the petitioners to pay fair compensation for the unacquired and now unutilizable remaining land after acquisition; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43004 WP No. 12124 of 2023 d. And grant such other or further relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case” 2. Heard Sri Rohit V.R., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Udita Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Harish N.N, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Manjunath N.D, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri B.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for respondent 3. BRIEF FACTS 3. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘KIADB’ for short) had for the purposes of respondent No.1 - Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (‘BMRCL’) acquired a portion of the land with commercial building bearing No. 65, 35th Main, 100 Feet Road, BTM II Stage, Bengaluru, resulting in the building diagonally cut across and leaving only 25% of the building. A notice dated 07.03.2019 was issued to the petitioners under Section 28(6) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘Act’ for short) demanding to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43004 WP No. 12124 of 2023 hand over physical possession of 149.93 square meters of the land belonging to the petitioners. The petitioners submitted a letter dated 28.03.2019 to acquire the entire property which request was rejected. Writ Petition was filed before this Court in W.P. No. 33327/2019. The said Writ Petition came to be withdrawn on the ground of the assurance of respondent that they would compensate for the unacquired building vide letter dated 02.11.2019. The petitioners sought for plan sanction of the remaining area. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) by letter dated 28.10.2021 rejected the plan on the ground that secondary drain was built on the acquired land and a setback of 25 meters from the drain has to be given, and as the unacquired portion of the site was 20.94 meters in length, sanction could not be given. On 29.10.2021 a letter was given to the respondent/BMRCL who replied on 27.04.2022 that plan could be sanctioned. Based on the aforesaid letter, representations were made to BBMP and a letter was issued to the Managing Director, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43004 WP No. 12124 of 2023 BMRCL, on 06.10.2022. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent cannot utilize the acquired land for the purpose of secondary water drain which result in the remaining land of the petitioners becoming unusable by the reason of zonal regulations. The refusal of the respondent to pay compensation for the remaining land is contrary to the assurance held out by them in their letter dated 02.11.2019 on the basis of which the earlier Writ Petition came to be withdrawn. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1- BMRCL in support of the statement of objections filed contends that in view of the letter submitted by the petitioners on 21.04.2022, the Assistant Director of Town Planning (South), BBMP has informed that steps would be taken for approving the building plan of the petitioners after obtaining necessary documents from them (Annexure-R40). It is further submitted that BBMP thereafter on 21.12.2022 through the Assistant Director of Town Planning (South), BBMP, addressed a letter to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43004 WP No. 12124 of 2023 General Manager (LA), BMRCL informing that in the matter of grant of licence sought by the petitioners, the opinion of Chief Engineer (Storm Water Drain) has been sought and that further steps would be taken depending upon his opinion. It is submitted that BMRCL had requested BBMP authorities to examine the case of the petitioners in light of the order passed in W.P.No. 15298/2020 as the drain near the property of the petitioners was in existence prior to the finalization of RMP 2015. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/BBMP submits that undisputedly respondent No.3 has issued a letter at Annexure-R40 and further at Annexure-R41 and reply given at Annexure-L and the steps for approval of the plan of the petitioners would be taken if some reasonable time is granted and the same would be considered in accordance with law. It is his submission that the petitioners be directed to produce all the necessary documents for the authority to pass appropriate orders. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43004 WP No. 12124 of 2023 6. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioners would be addressed if necessary directions are issued to respondent No.3 to consider Annexure-L with liberty to the petitioners to submit necessary documents to respondent No.3. Therefore, apart from the documents submitted, the petitioners are also at liberty to furnish all the documents if they are called upon by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 shall consider the sanction plan submitted by the petitioners at Annexure-F in light of the fact that the proposal to construct drain for the first respondent was never disclosed as the purpose of acquisition and bearing in mind RMP 2015 as the drain was laid post 2015 and, pass appropriate orders. 7. This Court in the case of Pavanjeet Singh Sandhu, IPS vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Others1 has held at para 7 as under : - 1W.P.No. 15298/2020, D.D. on 06.04.2021 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43004 WP No. 12124 of 2023 “7. ………. As noticed earlier, the requirement of having a buffer zone of 50 meters, 25 meters and 15 meters should be made applicable only to Drains newly identified while finalizing the RMP-2015 and at any rate it should not be applicable to the drains that were already in existence prior to finalization of RMP-2015….” 8. Admittedly, in the present case, the drain in petitioners land was not identified while passing RMP 2015. Keeping in mind this admitted fact, respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and also keeping in mind the letter issued by Assistant Director of Town Planning (South) at Annexure-R40 and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the aforesaid observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34