- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18850 WP No. 16235 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 16235 OF 2014 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR. ASGAR JAN, S/O LATE MR. MOHAMMED JAN, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT JANSONS BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, NOS.75 & 76, COMMERCIAL STREET, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. JANSONS INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT JANSONS BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR NOS.75 & 76, COMMERCIAL STREET BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. ASGAR JAN. &PETITIONERS (BY MS. FATHIMA NOHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GANAPATI HEGDE, ADVOCATE AND SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DODDAJALA GRAM PANCHAYATH DODDA JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 562 157. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18850 WP No. 16235 of 2014 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/ PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. 2. BANGALORE NORTH TALUK PANCHAYATH YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560 064, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.R. SATISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. UJWALA WALWADIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.8.2012 PASSED BY THE R-2, IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANN-D AND WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN MARKED AS EXHIBIT P-37 IN LAC NO.11/2012 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed assailing the order dated 25.08.2012, passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.1/2012-13. Consequently, a mandamus is sought against respondent No.1 to cancel the entries made in the immovable property register insofar as it relates to the land bearing Sy.No.89 (old Sy.No.80) which is now - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18850 WP No. 16235 of 2014 notified as panchayat property, set back road and park area. Consequently, a second mandamus is also sought to direct respondent No.1 to cancel the entries made in the property tax demand register insofar as it relates to the petition land bearing Sy.No.89. 2. The subject matter of the instant writ petition pertains to a specific portion of land measuring in total 55,711 square feet(equivalent to 5,175.72 square meters), situated in Sy.No.89(old No.80), which has been earmarked and retained as a setback area abutting National Highway No.7 (NH-7). The petitioners respectfully submit that this portion of land, though forming part of Sy.No.89, has been specifically and intentionally left vacant in compliance with applicable development norms, particularly the guidelines issued by the National Highways Authority concerning required road margins. 3. The petitioners state that various parcels of land in Sy.No.89 were purchased from different - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18850 WP No. 16235 of 2014 landowners with the objective of developing the same into a residential layout under the name and style of "Down Town Park (Residential Layout)." The landowners, after execution of sale deeds, also agreed to entrust the task of development of the layout to respondent No.1/Grama Panchayat, and accordingly, necessary steps were initiated. The petitioners further assert that the development of the layout was undertaken pursuant to a General Power of Attorney executed by the original landowners in favour of the developers, and with the approval and sanction of respondent No.1, the layout was duly formed in Sy.No.89 on 05.09.1992. 4. The petitioners respectfully submit that the residential layout so developed comprises different categories of land use, namely, residential sites (plots), roads, parks and amenity spaces, transformer yards, and importantly, the setback area for NH-7. The layout plan, duly sanctioned and approved by the competent authorities, clearly delineates these components. A copy of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18850 WP No. 16235 of 2014 the sanctioned layout plan is produced and marked as Annexure-M to the writ petition. It is pertinent to note that the layout plan specifically and distinctly demarcates the area left as setback for NH-7, which is the subject matter of this petition. 5. The petitioners further submit that the entire residential layout abuts National Highway No.7 along its eastern boundary, and being cognizant of the statutory requirement of maintaining a 40-meter-wide road margin along national highways, the petitioners, at the time of layout formation, deliberately left a continuous stretch of land vacant along the eastern boundary. This setback area extends from the northern to the southern end of the layout and has a total area of 55,711 square feet, which has not been plotted or developed and is visibly maintained as vacant land. Ever since the purchase of the land in Sy.No.89 and formation of the layout, the petitioners have treated this setback area as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18850 WP No. 16235 of 2014 their private property and have consistently maintained, fenced, and compounded the same at their own expense. 6. The petitioners are now aggrieved by the arbitrary and unilateral action of respondent No.1/Grama Panchayat in laying a claim over the said setback area and treating it as property belonging to the Panchayat. Upon verification of public records, the petitioners discovered that respondent No.1 has managed to get its name mutated in the Immovable Property Register as well as the Property Tax Demand Register maintained by the Panchayat, thereby asserting title and ownership over the subject land. The petitioners categorically submit that these entries have been made illegally, surreptitiously, and without any notice or intimation to the petitioners, despite the fact that the property continues to stand in the name of the petitioners in the title records. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18850 WP No. 16235 of 2014 7. Feeling aggrieved by such unilateral and illegal mutation entries, the petitioners preferred an appeal before respondent No.2/Taluk Panchayat, challenging the said entries on the specific ground that respondent No.1/Grama Panchayat has no authority in law to assert title over the subject property or to mutate its name in official registers. However, respondent No.2, without proper consideration of the documentary evidence and legal contentions raised by the petitioners, proceeded to dismiss the appeal, thereby giving tacit approval to the illegal and unauthorized acts of respondent No.1. It is under these circumstances, and having no other efficacious or alternative remedy, that the petitioners are constrained to approach this Hon9ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate relief. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the records. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18850 WP No. 16235 of 2014 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds, has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in RFA No. 134 of 2018. Citing the judgment, she would point out that the controversy in regard to the title over the setback area is given a quietus by the Division Bench and the Division Bench, while affirming the judgment rendered by the reference court, has recorded a categorical finding that respondent No.1/Grama Panchayat cannot lay a claim over the setback area unless respondent No.1 has acquired title in a manner known to law. Citing the judgment, she would point out that the order passed by respondent No.2 is not sustainable and the local authorities, more particularly respondent No.1/Grama Panchayat, are bound to act upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in RFA No. 134 of 2018 and restore the names of the petitioners to this disputed setback area. 10. Though this matter was extensively argued by the petitioner's counsel on the previous date, as there was - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18850 WP No. 16235 of 2014 no representation on behalf of the counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and the matter was adjourned to enable the counsel to address his arguments. Even today there is no representation. This petition is pending consideration since 2014. Since the Division Bench has decided the issue relating to title over this setback area, this court is of the view that the illegal entries in the immovable property register and property tax demand register relating to this setback area in Survey No.89 cannot be sustained. The petitioners, who are the lawful owners, are entitled to get their names restored in regard to this disputed setback area abutting the National Highway. 11. Before this Hon9ble Court proceeds to examine the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority4respondent No.2 and consequently consider issuing appropriate directions in the matter, this Court deems it necessary to refer to and rely upon certain authoritative findings recorded by a Division Bench of this Hon9ble Court in RFA No.134 of 2018, which - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18850 WP No. 16235 of 2014 are directly relevant to the controversy involved in the present petition. The Division Bench in the said appeal was called upon to adjudicate an analogous issue concerning the entitlement of a Grama Panchayat to assert ownership or title over road margins and setback areas reserved along a National Highway in the context of a layout formation. The Division Bench, while affirming the judgment and award dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.11 of 2012, has laid down binding conclusions on the nature of rights, if any, that vest in a Panchayat over such road margins or setback areas, particularly when they are shown as such in a layout sanctioned under statutory norms. 12. In this regard, paragraph No.36 of the Division Bench9s judgment in RFA No.134 of 2018 is highly relevant and is extracted hereunder in extenso for ready reference: "36. Sri. Shivaprakash has also relied upon the evidence of PW-1 and also Exs.P23 and P36 to contend that PW-1 had admitted the extent of land purchased, extent of land converted, extent of land utilized and extent of land earmarked for civic amenities, road, which has been - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18850 WP No. 16235 of 2014 overlooked by the Civil Judge and also the documents Exs.P1, P35 and P36 clearly demonstrate that the schedule land as road, vest with the appellant-Panchayat. Suffice to state, Ex.P1 is the conversion order. Exs.P35 and P36 are the encumbrance certificate and layout plan. These documents, in whatever manner existing, still the issue which falls for consideration is the entitlement of the appellant to the compensation on the acquisition of the schedule property by the NHAI and the case of both the parties is by relying upon the conversion order. The said issue has to be decided on the basis of interpretation of the clauses thereof. As per our interpretation, it is clear that no right or interest get transferred in favour of the appellant in respect of road margin abutting the National Highway reserved for widening." 13. In light of the clear and authoritative findings recorded by the Division Bench in RFA No.134 of 2018, which unequivocally held that no right, title, or interest stands transferred to the Panchayat in respect of road margins abutting the National Highway, this Hon9ble Court is of the considered opinion that respondent No.1/Grama Panchayat has no legal authority or entitlement to assert ownership or claim over the setback area that is the subject matter of this writ petition. The Division Bench has upheld the judgment of the Reference Court, which has conclusively adjudicated the question of entitlement and has held that the Panchayat/Respodent no.1 does not - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18850 WP No. 16235 of 2014 acquire any right over land reserved as road margin merely because it appears in the layout plan or is reserved in compliance with highway regulations. 14. In the circumstances, respondent No.1 is legally bound to act in accordance with the findings recorded by the Reference Court and affirmed by the Division Bench, and is consequently under a duty to rectify and restore the entries in the revenue and tax records to reflect the petitioners9 continued ownership and possession over the said setback area. This Hon9ble Court, therefore, holds that the order passed by respondent No.2/Appellate Authority dismissing the petitioners9 appeal suffers from illegality and non-application of mind to binding judicial precedents, and hence is liable to be quashed and set aside. 15. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that appropriate and specific directions are required to be issued to respondent No.1 to forthwith give effect to the binding conclusions recorded by the Division Bench in RFA - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18850 WP No. 16235 of 2014 No.134 of 2018, and to restore the status of the owners of the setback area by rectifying all illegal entries made in the name of respondent No.1 in the Immovable Property Register and Property Tax Demand Register, strictly in conformity with judgement rendered by Division Bench in RFA No.134 of 2018. 16. For the for going reasons, this Court passes following; ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. The impugned order dated 25.08.2012 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.1 of 2012-13 as per Annexure-D, is hereby quashed and set aside; iii. Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to restore the names strictly adhering to the findings recorded by the Division Bench in - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18850 WP No. 16235 of 2014 RFA No. 134 of 2018 and LAC No. 11 of 2012; iv. This exercise shall be accomplished by respondent No.1 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order copy. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 CT: BHK