1 Reserved on : 12.08.2025 Pronounced on : 09.09.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.16370 OF 2023 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1 . MR.ANTHONY RAJU AGED 40 YEARS, S/O LATE MR.RAYAPPA @ RAJANNA 2 . MS. MARY STELLA AGED 49 YEARS, D/O LATE MR.RAYAPPA @ RAJANNA 3 . MR. BALARAJU AGED 35 YEARS 4 . MR.DAVID RAJU AGED 34 YEARS, S/O LATE MR.RAYAPPA @ RAJANNA 5 . MRS.TERESAMMA AGED 62 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI B. CHINAPPA 6 . MR.SELVARAJU AGED 46 YEARS, S/O LATE MR.RAYAPPA @ RAJANNA 2 7 . MR.BHAGYAPPA BALARAJU AGED 35 YEARS, S/O LATE MR.RAYAPPA @ RAJANNA ALL RESIDING AT MESTRIPALYA SIVARAMAKANTHA NAGAR, RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 077 AND ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDERS M/S. ASN DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, SITE NO.4/1 PATTANDURU AGRAHARA WHITEFIELD, K.R.PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.K.ETHIRAJULU NAIDU, S/O UDDADANNA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI HANUMANTHARAYA D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. 3 2 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY K.P.WEST BENGALURU – 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3 . BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE BENGALURU – 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 4 . MEMBER, TOWN PLANNING BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, K.P.WEST BENGALURU – 560 020. 5 . JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING NORTH B.B.M.P, BENGALURU – 560 002. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI M.UNNIKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R4; SRI N.R.JAGADEESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE DESIGNATION OF SCHEDULE-B PROPERTY, MEASURING 453.23 SQ.MTRS CARVED OUT OF THE A SCHEDULE PROPERTY, SITUATED AT RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE, K R PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, AS ROAD IN RMP-2015 IS DEEMED TO HAVE LAPSED U/S 69(2) OF THE KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1961 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PETITIONERS, ARE ENTITLED TO USE THE B SCHEDULE PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL OR OTHER PURPOSES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.BEMPRA/NAYOSA/MIS-1684/1968/2021-22 DTD 08.03.2022 ISSUED BY BDA THE R4 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER, TOWN PLANNING AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND 4 CONSEQUENTLY TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO SANCTION THE PLAN ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DTD 17.07.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-M FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.08.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 08-03-2022 passed by the Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short) and seeking a consequential direction to sanction the plan on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioners for development and construction of an apartment building. 2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The father of the petitioners was the absolute owner and in possession of the subject property in Sy.No.75 of Rachenahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk measuring 2 acres 5 08 guntas. The said land comes to be converted from agriculture to residential purpose in terms of the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 11-02-2003. Consequent upon the death of the father of the petitioners, all these petitioners are said to have inherited the subject property. The property coming within the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) khatha and all other municipal records got transferred into the names of these petitioners. It is the submission that taxes have been paid by these petitioners up to date. 3. On 17-07-2019 the petitioners submit an application for sanction of building licence and building plan. The BBMP acknowledges receipt of the application. The petitioners are said to have paid an amount of ₹23.34 lakhs to the BBMP towards licence fee. The BBMP then issues an endorsement stating that in terms of revised Master Plan of 2015 a road passes through the subject property and it would be able to sanction the building plan only after shifting the proposed road. The petitioners then challenge the said endorsement before this Court in Writ Petition No.12506 of 2021, but later withdrew the petition with liberty to file an 6 application under Section 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) seeking shifting of the road. The petitioners then file the application before the BDA under Section 14A of the Act, for the purpose of shifting of the road which passes through the schedule property. The BDA did not consider the application. Therefore, the petitioners again approach this Court in Writ Petition No.353 of 2022 seeking a direction to that effect. After issuance of notice, the BDA issues an endorsement that it is not permissible to submit a proposal for change of land use, if the land comes within the existing or the proposed road in terms of the Master Plan. The writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to challenge the said endorsement. Therefore, the subject petition is preferred by the petitioners challenging the said endorsement. 4. Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri N. Spoorthy Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, Sri M. Unnikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 4 and Sri N. R. Jagadeeshwara, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 5. 7 5. The learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the Master Plan 2015 came into effect in the year 2007. The BDA itself is not aware as to when the proposed road would come up. He would take this Court through a sketch to contend that all buildings have come up on the adjacent sites of the property and laying a road there, is next to impossibility. But, the BDA is wanting to hold the property only because it has power under Section 69(2) of the Act. He would submit that right to property by the petitioners as obtaining under Article 300-A of the Constitution is put to jeopardy, by the act of the BDA in not considering the application of the petitioners for shifting of the road, when there is enormous space outside the area. The BDA is seeking of its impossibility. Therefore, he seeks a direction to permit shifting of the road and allowing petitioners to have benefit of right to property. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Unnikrishnan appearing for respondents 2 and 4 would vehemently contend that in terms of Section 69(2) of the Act the acquisition will never lapse. If it is reserved for public purpose, formation of a road is undoubtedly a 8 public purpose. The Master Plan 2015 no doubt came into effect in 2007. It is since then road is being thought of in the property and the road does pass through the property of the petitioners in the Master Plan. He would admit the fact that the father of the petitioners owned the property long before drawing up of the Master Plan. It is his contention this Court cannot direct shifting of the road as it would run counter to Section 69(2) of the Act. He would seek to place reliance upon several judgments, one of which is considered by this Court itself holding that once in the Master Plan if it is declared to be reserved for public purpose, the acquisition would not lapse and that it cannot be taken away for any other purpose. 7. The learned senior counsel would join issue in contending that when this Court held so, the judgment of the Apex Court was not yet in place holding that right to property cannot be made illusory by the act of the respondents therein. He would paraphrase the observations of the Apex Court to the case at hand to contend that it is 18 years today that the BDA is holding this property for the purpose of proposed road. Where is the proposal nobody 9 knows; when the proposal going to become a reality is again nobody is aware. The BDA admittedly is not aware when it is going to form the road. He would reiterate the prayer in seeking to quash the endorsement and granting the prayers as prayed for. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The father of the petitioners who was in possession and enjoyment of subject property submits an application seeking conversion of land from agriculture to residential purpose which came to be granted on 11-02-2003. The order of conversion reads as follows: “: ಅಕೃತ ಅಕೃತ ಅಕೃತ ಅಕೃತ ಾಪನ ಾಪನ ಾಪನ ಾಪನ : ಷಯ: ೆಂಗಳರು ೆ, ೆಂಗಳರು ಪವ ಾಲೂಕು, ೆ.ಆ .ಪ!ರ "ೋಬ%, &ಾ'ೇನಹ%) *ಾ+ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ. 75 ರ/ ಒಟು2 2.08 ಎಕ&ೆ:ಗುಂ: 45ೕಣದ ವ7ವ8ಾಯದ ಜ:ೕನನು; ವ7ವ8ಾ<ೕತರ =ಾಸದ ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶಾBC ಭೂ ಪEವತFೆ ೋE G+ೕ.H.&ಾಯಪI HJ.Kಾಗ7ಪI, &ಾ'ೇನಹ%) ರವರು ಸ/4ರುವ ಅ LFಾಂಕ: 3-2-2003. ಉೇಖ:1) ತಹ4ೕಾ@ , ೆಂಗಳರು ಪವ ಾಲೂಕು ಇವರ ವರL ಸಂ: ಎಎOಎJ:ಎP ಆ :438:2002-03 LFಾಂಕ: 7-2-2003. 10 2) ಭೂ ಪEವತFಾ ಶುಲB ರೂ.119790.00 "ಾಗೂ QೕR ಶುಲB ರೂ.55.00 ಒಟು2 ರೂ.119845.00 ಗಳನು; ಚಲJ ನಂ.ಎOಆ :120 LFಾಂಕ: 11:2:2003 ರಂದು ಖTಾFೆ*ೆ ಅ?ಾರರು ಜVಾ VಾRರುಾ5&ೆ. 3) ಈ ಕXೇEಯ ಆ?ೇಶ ಮತು5 YಳZವ%ೆ LFಾಂಕ 7-2-2003 ಭೂ ಪEವತFೆ. *** ಕFಾಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂ?ಾಯ ಅ]ಯಮ 1964 ರ ಕಲಂ 95(2), 95(4) ಮತು5 95(7) ರ ಷರತು5ಗಳZ "ಾಗು ಷರತು5ಗ%*ೊಳಪR4, ಕFಾಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂ?ಾಯ (Yದು@ಪR) ]ಯಮಗಳZ 1964 ರ ]ಯಮ 107(1) ರಂೆ ಎಕ&ೆ ಒಂದೆB ರೂ.54,450-00 (ರೂ^ಾ_ಗಳಂೆ ಅ?ಾರರು ಉೇಖ(2) ರ/ ನಮೂL4ರುವಂೆ ಹಣವನು; ಜVಾ VಾRದ `ೕ&ೆ*ೆ ಅ?ಾರ&ಾದ G+ೕ.H.&ಾಯಪI HJ.Kಾಗ7ಪI, &ಾ'ೇನಹ%)ರವರ ಅಯನು; ಪEಗa4, ೆ.ಆ .ಪ!ರ "ೋಬ%, &ಾ'ೇನಹ%) *ಾ+ಮದ ಸ=ೆ ನಂ. 75 ರ/ನ ಒಟು2 2.08 ಎಕ&ೆ:ಗುಂbೆ 45ೕಣದ ವ7ವ8ಾಯದ ಜ:ೕನನು; ವ7ವ8ಾ<ೕತರ =ಾಸದ ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶಾBC ಬಳಸಲು ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಷರತು5ಗ%*ೆ ಒಳಪಟು2 ಭೂ ಪEವತFಾ ಆ?ೇಶವನು; "ೊರRಸಾC?ೆ. 1. ಈ ಭೂ:ಯು dಾವ ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶಾBC ಪEವತFೆdಾC?ೆeೕ ಆ ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶಾBC ಉಪeೕC4ೊಳ)ಲು ಸfಮ ^ಾ+ಾE_ಂದ, ಅಂದ&ೆ ಅgವೃLh ಮಂಡ%:4ಎಂ4:iಎಂ4: Vಾ/ನ7 ]ಯಂತ+jಾ ಮಂಡ%: *ಾ+ಮ ಪಂ'ಾ_Yಗ%ಂದ ಮಂಜೂ&ಾYಯನು; ಪkೆಯದ "ೊರತು ಈ ಆ?ೇಶವ! ಅನುಭವ?ಾರ]*ೆ dಾವ!?ೇ ಹಕBನು; ]ೕಡುವ!Lಲ. 2. ಈ ಭೂ ಪEವYತ ಜ:ೕನನು; =ಾಸದ ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶಾBC Vಾತ+ ಉಪeೕC4ೊಳ)ತಕBದು@. ಈ ಜ:ೕನನು; ಪ=ಾನುಮY ಇಲ?ೆ ೇ&ೆ ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶಾBC ಉಪeೕC4ೊಳ) ಾರದು. 3. ಈ ಜ:ೕ]ನ/ ಉ?ೆ@ೕG4ರುವ ಬkಾವjೆ ನlೆ "ಾಗೂ ಪರ=ಾನC ಇಾ7Lಗಳನು; ಅgವೃLh ಮಂಡ%:4ಎಂ4:iಎಂ4:Vಾ/ನ7 ]ಯಂತ+jಾ ಮಂಡ%, *ಾ+ಮ ಪಂ'ಾ_Yಗ%ಂದ ಅನುmೕL4ೊಂಡು D ನಂತರ ಅನುmೕದFೆ*ೊಂಡ ನlೆ*ೆ ಅನುಗುಣ=ಾC ಕಟ2ಡವನು; ಕಟು2ವ!ದು. ಸದE ಜ:ೕ]ನ/ ೇಔo ^ಾJ*ೆ ಅನುmೕದFೆ ಪkೆಯ?ೆ ಪರKಾ&ೆ Vಾಡಕೂಡದು. 4 ಇತ&ೆ ಅವಶ7=ಾದ ರ8ೆ5 Tಾಗ, ರ8ೆ5 VಾJ, pಾ/ Tಾಗ ಇಾ7Lಗಳನು; ಅgವೃLh ಮಂಡ%:4ಎಂ4:iಎಂ4:Vಾ/ನ7 ]ಯಂತ+jಾ ಮಂಡ%: *ಾ+ಮ ಪಂ'ಾ_Y gÀªÀjAzÀ ಅನುmೕL4ದ ಬkಾವjೆ ನlೆ ಪ+ಾರ "ಾಗೂ ]Lಷ2ಪR4ದ ]ಯಮಗಳ Eೕಾ7 ಸದE ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶಾBC ಾ_@EಸತಕBದು@. 11 5. 8ಾವಜ]ಕ qತದೃr2_ಂದ ಸದE ಜ:ೕ]ನ/ನ ]=ೇಶನ?ಾರE*ೆ FಾಗEೕಕ 8ೌಲಭ7ಗtಾದ «zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ, ]ೕರು ಸರಬ&ಾಜು, ಒಳಚರಂR ವ7ವ8ೆu ಇಾ7Lಗಳನು; ಆ&ೋಗ7 Fೈಮ/ೕಕರಣ ºÁUÀÆ ¨sÀzÀævÉUÀ¼À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ J¯Áè 8ೌಲಭ7ಗಳನು; ಾನೂನು Eೕಾ7 ಒದC4ೊಡುªÀÅzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ಜ=ಾ ಾ@EdಾCರುತ5?ೆ. 6. ಈ ಜ:ೕ]*ೆ vÁಕು ಪo ಖ&ಾw ಜ:ೕ]ದ@/ ಕFಾಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂ?ಾ ಾ<@ 1964ರ ಕಲಂ 67 gÀAೆ ಸಾರದ ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶಾBC ಾ_@EಸತಕBದು@ "ಾಗೂ ಪ+ಸು5ತ ಭೂ ಪEವತFೆ*ೆ ಒಳಪnÖgÀĪÀ ಸ=ೆ ನಂ.75 ರ/ 0.01 ಗುಂbೆ 45ೕಣ 'H' ಖ&ಾHನ/ ಬರುವ ಾರಣ ಇದನು; 8ಾವಜ]ಕ ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶಾBC :ೕಸ/EಸಾC?ೆ. ಈ 45ೕಣದ `ೕೆ ಅ?ಾರE*ೆ dಾವ!?ೇ ಹಕುB ಇರುವ!Lಲ. ಈ 'H' ಖ&ಾHನ 45ೕಣದ ಹಕುB dಾ=ಾಗಲೂ ಸಾರೆB 8ೇEರುತ5?ೆ. ತಹGೕಾ@ ರವರು ಈ ಾ§ÄÛ Dgï n AiÀÄ°è ಸIಷ2=ಾC ನಮೂLಸತಕBದು@. 7. ಸಾರದ ಆ?ೇಶದ ಸಂ:zಡಬೂ{R/7656-655 ಮತು5 H-6-54-5 ಮತು5 ೇಂದ+ ಸಾರದ ¸ÁjUÉ ಇಾpೆಯ ಪತ+ ನಂ.z1:7(11) 67, LFಾಂಕ: 1-1-1966 ರಂೆ ಈ ಜ:ೕ]ನ/ ಕಟ2ಲು ಉ?ೆ@ೕG4ರುವ ಕಟ2ಡವ! &ಾr|ೕಯ "ಾಗೂ &ಾಜ7 "ೆ?ಾ@Eಗ%*ೆ ಸಂಬಂ4ದಂೆ ರ8ೆ5ಯ ಮಧ7KಾಗLಂದ 40 :ೕಟ ಅಂತರವನು; ಮತು5 ಾ "ೆ?ಾ@E*ೆ ಸಂಬಂ4ದಂೆ ರ8ೆ5ಯ ಮಧ7KಾಗLಂದ 25 :ೕಟ ಅಂತರವನು; ಾLEಸ ೇಕು "ಾಗೂ ಈ pಾ/ ಪ+?ೇಶದ/ dಾವ!?ೇ ಕಟ2ಡವನು; ಕಟ2 ಾರದು. 8. `ೕಲBಂಡ dಾವ!?ೇ ಷರತು5ಗಳನು; ಉಲಂ~4ದ/ ಭೂ ಪEವತFೆ ಆ?ೇಶ dಾವ!?ೇ ಸೂಚFೆ ]ೕಡ?ೆ ರದು@*ೊ%ಸಾಗುವ!ದು ಮತು5 ಕFಾಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂ?ಾಯ ಾ<@ 1964 ರ ಕಲಂ 96 ರಂೆ ದಂಡ ಶುಲBವನು; ಸಲು ಮುಂLನ ಕ+ಮ ೆ*ೆದುೊಳ)ಾಗುವ!ದು, ಅಲ?ೆ ಈ ಜ:ೕ]ನ/ ಅನಕೃತ=ಾC ಕi2ದ ಕಟ2ಡಗಳನು; dಾವ!?ೇ ಪE"ಾರ ]ೕಡ?ೆ ೆಡವಲು ಕ+ಮ ೆ*ೆದುೊಳ)ಾಗುವ!ದು "ಾಗೂ ಅದೆB ತಗಲುವ =ೆಚ•ವನು; ಭೂ ಕಂ?ಾಯ ಾ€ ಎಂದು pಾೇ?ಾರEಂದ ವಸೂ/ Vಾಡಾಗುವ!ದು. -:ƒೆಡೂ7O ವರ:- ೆಂಗಳರು ೆ, ೆಂಗಳರು ಪವ ಾಲೂಕು, ೆ.ಆ .ಪ!ರ "ೋಬ%, &ಾ'ೇನಹ%) *ಾ+ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ. 75 ರ/ ಒಟು2 2.08 ಎಕ&ೆ:ಗುಂ: 45ೕಣೆB ಭೂ ಪEವYತ ಜ:ೕ]*ೆ 'ೆಕುBಬಂL: (ಎರಡು ಎಕ&ೆ ಎಂಟು ಗುಂbೆ Vಾತ+) ಪವೆB : ಸಾE ?ಾE ಪG•ಮೆB: ೆ&ೆ ಅಂಗಳ ಉತ5ರೆB : &ಾಯO ಎJ&ೋO ಬkಾವjೆ 12 ದ„ಣೆB: ಸುಂದ ಮೂYರವರ ಜ:ೕನು ಸq/- (ಎP.ಎJ.Fಾಗ&ಾಜು) …ೇಷ ಾಾEಗಳZ (ಕಂ) ೆಂಗಳರು ೆ.” The subject property then becomes the subject matter of final Master Plan and a portion of the schedule property was held for the purpose of formation of road. The final Master Plan – 2015 came into effect in the year 2007. This is an admitted fact, in terms of the averment of the BDA in its statement of objections. It reads as follows: “…. …. …. 6. It is submitted that the lands of the Petitioner became subject matter of the Final Master Plan which was notified on 29.01.2009 and as such a portion of the land was held for the purpose of formation of a road. That for the purpose of the above petition, various provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act are as under: 11. Power of entry for carrying out surveys for preparing outline development plan.--For the purpose of carrying out a survey for preparation of an outline development plan and for the purpose of preparing of such plan, any person authorized by the Director or the Planning Authority or any public servant or person duly authorized or appointed under this Act may, after giving such notice as may be prescribed to the owner, occupier or other person interested in the land, enter upon, survey and mark out such land and do all things necessary for such purpose. 13 12. Contents of Master Plan.- (1) The Master Plan shall consist of a series of maps and documents indicating the manner in which the development and improvement of the entire planning area within the jurisdiction of the Planning Authority are to be carried out and regulated, such plan shall include proposals for the following. namely:- (a) zoning of land use for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, educational and other purposes together with Zoning Regulations; (aa) Present land use maps and proposed land use map prepared for the local planning area, local authority jurisdiction and for every ward within the local authority boundaries. (b) a complete street pattern, indicating major and minor roads. national highways, and state highways, and traffic circulation pattern, for meeting immediate and future requirements with proposals for Improvements; (c) areas reserved for parks, playgrounds, and other recreational uses, public open spaces, public buildings and institutions and area reserved for such other purposes as may be expedient for new civic developments; (d) areas earmarked for future development and expansion: (e) reservation of land for the purposes of Central Government, the State Government, Planning Authority or public utility undertaking or any other authority established by Law, and the designation of lands being subject to acquisition for public purposes or as specified in Master Plan or securing the use of the landing in the manner provided by or under this Act; (f) declaring certain areas, as areas of special control and development in such areas being subject to such regulations as may be made in regard to building line, height of the building, floor area ratio, architectural features and such other particulars as may be prescribed: (g) stages by which the plan is to be carried out. Explanation: 14 (i) "Building Line" means the line up to which the plinth of a building adjoining a street may lawfully extend and includes the lines prescribed, if any, in any scheme; (ii) "Floor Area Ratio" means the quotient of the ratio of the combined gross floor area of all the floors, excepting areas specifically exempted under the regulations, to the total area of the plot. (2) The following particulars shall be published and sent to the State Government through the Director along with the master plan. namely:- (i) a report of the surveys carried out by the Planning Authority before the preparation of such plan; (ii) a report explaining the provisions of the Master Plan: (iii) regulations in respect of each land use zone to enforce the provisions of such plan and explaining the manner in which necessary permission for developing any land can be obtained from the Planning Authority: (iv) a report of the stages by which it is proposed to meet the obligations imposed on the Planning Authority by such plan. (3) Master Plan shall indicate "Heritage Buildings" and "Heritage Precincts" and shall include the regulations made therein for conservation of the same. 13. Approval of the Master Plan.- (1) On receipt of the Master Plan with the reports referred to in section 12 from the Planning Authority under sub-section (1) of section 9, or after such plan and reports are prepared and published under subsection (2) of section 9. the State Government after making such modifications as it deems fit or as may be advised by the Director, shall return through the Director, the plan and the reports to the Planning Authority, which shall thereupon publish, by notification, the plan and the reports inviting public comments within sixty days of such publication 2 [Simultaneously, the plan and reports shall be forwarded to the local authorities within the local planning area. which shall, within sixty days from the date of receipt thereof. forward to the Planning Authority, 15 its approval or any observations to be considered by the Authority, failing which the approval of the local authority shall be deemed to have been given. (2) If within sixty days of the publication under sub- section (1), any member of the public communicates in writing to the Planning Authority any comments on the plan and the reports, the Planning authority shall consider such comments and resubmit the plan and the reports to the State Government, through the Director with recommendations for such modifications in the plan and reports as it considers necessary in the light of the public comments made on the plan and reports. (3) The State Government, after receiving the plan and the reports and the recommendations for modifications from the Planning Authority, shall, in consultation with the Director, give its final approval to the plan and the reports with such modifications as the Director may advice in the light of the comments and the recommendations of the Planning authority or otherwise. (4) The Planning Authority shall then publish in the prescribed manner the Master Plan and the reports as finally approved by the State Government. The plan and the reports shall be permanently displayed in the offices of the Director and the Planning Authority and a copy shall be kept available for inspection of the public at the office of the Planning Authority. 13-A. Interim Master Plan. (1) Pending the preparation of Master Plan, a Planning Authority may, where it considers it expedient, and shall, when so directed by the State Government, prepare and publish the Interim Master Plan for the entire area within the jurisdiction of the Planning Authority, or for any part thereof; and their upon, the provisions of section 13 shall, so far as may be, but subject to the provisions of this section, apply in relation to such Interim Master Plan as they apply in relation to the preparation and publication of the Master Plan. (2) The Planning Authority shall prepare and publish such plan not later than one year from the date of notice in the official Gazette of its declaration of intention to prepare a Master plan or not later than such further period not exceeding one year as may be extended by the State Government. 16 (3) The Interim Master Plan shall provide only for matters mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 12 and if necessary, such other matters specified in that section as the Planning Authority may decide to include or as may be directed by the State Government. (4) The Interim Master Plan shall consist of such maps and such descriptive matters as the Planning Authority may consider necessary to explain and illustrate the proposals made in such plan." (Emphasis added) Therefore, it becomes an admitted fact that the BDA has reserved the subject property for formation of a road. The final Master Plan was notified on 29-01-2009 but comes into effect in the year 2007. 10. It is the case of the petitioners that on 12-10-2012 the State Government had permitted minor adjustment that can be effected relating to alignment of the road in the final Master Plan and issued guidelines permitting such change with regard to aligning of roads. The guidelines are in place. The petitioners then enter into a joint development agreement to develop the property into an apartment complex as it is measuring 2 acres 08 guntas. They filed an application before the BDA for sanction of a building licence for construction of building in accordance with the building plan so submitted. It was for the purpose of construction of a 17 residential apartment. Requisite licence fee for the purpose of sanction of plan was also paid. 11. On 06-04-2021, respondent No.2/BDA communicates to the BBMP that in terms of RMP 2015 ‘B’ schedule property which forms part of building plan is shown as proposed road and therefore the plan for construction of a residential complex cannot be sanctioned. It is then the BBMP issues an endorsement on 22-04-2021 rejecting the application of the petitioners seeking sanction of plan. However, the endorsement also notices that the plan can be sanctioned only after shifting of the proposed road to the extreme western side of ‘A’ schedule property. The endorsement reads as follows: “…. …. …. `ೕಲBಂಡ ಷಯೆB ಸಂಬಂ4ದಂೆ, ಾವ! ಸದE ಸ‰Y5ನ/ ವಸY ಸಮುಚ•ಯ ಕಟ2ಡ ]Vಾಣ Vಾಡಲು ಉೇಖ (1) ರ ಪತ+ದಂೆ ನlೆ ಮಂಜೂ&ಾY ೋE ಈ ಕXೇE*ೆ ಮನ ಸ/4ರುY5ೕE. ಈ ಬ*ೆŠ ಪEGೕ/ಸಾC, ಪEಷ‹ತ Vಾಸ2 ^ಾJ - 2015 ರ ಭೂ ಉಪeೕಗದ ನlೆಯನ‰ಯ ಸದE ಸ‰Y5ನ ಮಧ7Kಾಗದ/ ಉ?ೆ@ೕGತ 18.00 :ೕ. ಅಗಲದ ರ8ೆ5ಯು "ಾದು "ೋCದು@, ಅದರಂೆ ಸ‰Y5ನ/ ಉ?ೆ@ೕ4ತ 18.00 :ೕ. ಅಗಲದ ಉ?ೆ@ೕGತ ರ8ೆ5*ಾC Tಾಗವನು; ಾ_@E4 ನlೆಗಳನು; ಪEಷBE4 ಸ/ಸುವಂೆ ಉೇಖ (2) ರ ಪತ+ದಂೆ ಈ ಕXೇE_ಂದ LFಾಂಕ: 30-05-2020 ರಂದು qಂಬರಹ ]ೕಡಾCತು5. ಅದರಂೆ ಾವ! ಉೇಖ (3) ರ ಪತ+ದಂೆ LFಾಂಕ: 09-10-2020 ರಂದು ಮನ ಸ/4, ಮನ eಂL*ೆ ಸದE ಸ‰Y5ನ ಸ=ೆ ನಂ. 75 ರ ಸ‰Y5ನ Kಾಗಶಃ ಮಧ7Kಾಗದ/ ಇರುವ ಉ?ೆ@ೕGತ 18.00 :ೕ. ಅಗಲದ ರ8ೆ5ಯನು;, ಸದE ಸ=ೆ ನಂಬ ನ ಪG•ಮದ ಗR*ೆ ನlೆಯ/ 18 ಗುರುY4ರುವಂೆ ಉಪeೕC4ೊಳZ)ವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಉೇಖ (4) ರ ಪತ+ದನ‰ಯ ೆಂಗಳರು ಅgವೃLh ^ಾ+ಾರLಂದ ಸಂpೆ7: ೆಂಅ^ಾ+/ನeೕಸ/ಎಂಐಎP-426/335/2020-21, LFಾಂಕ: 24-09-2020 ರಂದು ]ೕRರುವ ಆ?ೇಶದ ಪ+Yಯನು; "ಾಗೂ ನlೆಯನು; ಸ/ಸುಾ5, ಅದರಂೆ ಸದE ಸ‰Y5ನ/ ]:ಸಲು ಉ?ೆ@ೕG4ರುವ ವಸY ಸಮುಚ•ಯ ಕಟ2ಡೆB ನlೆ ಮಂಜೂ&ಾY ]ೕಡುವಂೆ ೋEರುY5ೕE. ಅದರಂೆ ಸದE ನlೆ ಮಂಜೂ&ಾY ಪ+8ಾ5ವFೆ*ೆ Vಾನ7 ಆಯುಕ5ರು ರವರು ಉೇಖ (5) ರಂೆ LFಾಂಕ: 28-01-2021 ರಂದು ಅನುmೕದFೆ ]ೕRರುಾ5&ೆ. ಅದರನ‰ಯ ಉೇಖ (6) ರ ಶುಲB ^ಾವY YಳZವ%ೆ ಪತ+ದಂೆ ಅಗತ7 ಶುಲBಗಳನು; ^ಾ/ೆ*ೆ ^ಾವYಸುವಂೆ ಸದE ಸ‰Y5ನ/ ರ8ೆ5 ಅಗ/ೕಕರಣಾBC ಾ_@E4ರುವ ಪ+?ೇಶವನು; ^ಾ/ೆ*ೆ ಉŽತ=ಾC ಪEಾ7ಜ7Fಾ ಪತ+ದ ಮುpಾಂತರ ಹ8ಾ5ಂತE4ರುವ Fೊಂ?ಾ_ತ ಪ+Yಯನು; "ಾಗೂ ೆಂಗಳರು ]ೕರು ಸರಬ&ಾಜು ಮತು5 ಒಳಚರಂR ಮಂಡ%_ಂದ ಪkೆLರುವ ]&ಾlೇಪjಾ ಪತ+ವನು; ಸ/ಸುವಂೆ Y%ಸಾCರುತ5?ೆ. ಈ ಈ ಈ ಈ ಮ•ೆ7 ಮ•ೆ7 ಮ•ೆ7 ಮ•ೆ7 ಸದE ಸದE ಸದE ಸದE ಸ‰Y5ನ ಸ‰Y5ನ ಸ‰Y5ನ ಸ‰Y5ನ ಸ=ೆ ಸ=ೆ ಸ=ೆ ಸ=ೆ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ. 75 ರರರರ ಸ‰Y5ನ ಸ‰Y5ನ ಸ‰Y5ನ ಸ‰Y5ನ Kಾಗಶಃ Kಾಗಶಃ Kಾಗಶಃ Kಾಗಶಃ ಮಧ7Kಾಗ ಮಧ7Kಾಗ ಮಧ7Kಾಗ ಮಧ7Kಾಗದ/ ದ/ ದ/ ದ/ ಇರುವ ಇರುವ ಇರುವ ಇರುವ ಉ?ೆ@ೕGತ ಉ?ೆ@ೕGತ ಉ?ೆ@ೕGತ ಉ?ೆ@ೕGತ 18:00 :ೕ :ೕ :ೕ :ೕ. ಅಗಲದ ಅಗಲದ ಅಗಲದ ಅಗಲದ ರ8ೆ5ಯನು; ರ8ೆ5ಯನು; ರ8ೆ5ಯನು; ರ8ೆ5ಯನು;, ಸದE ಸದE ಸದE ಸದE ಸ=ೆ ಸ=ೆ ಸ=ೆ ಸ=ೆ ನಂಬ ನಂಬ ನಂಬ ನಂಬ ನನನನ ಪG•ಮದ ಪG•ಮದ ಪG•ಮದ ಪG•ಮದ ಗR*ೆ ಗR*ೆ ಗR*ೆ ಗR*ೆ ನlೆಯ/ ನlೆಯ/ ನlೆಯ/ ನlೆಯ/ ಗುರುY4ರುವಂೆ ಗುರುY4ರುವಂೆ ಗುರುY4ರುವಂೆ ಗುರುY4ರುವಂೆ ಉಪeೕC4ೊಳZ)ವ ಉಪeೕC4ೊಳZ)ವ ಉಪeೕC4ೊಳZ)ವ ಉಪeೕC4ೊಳZ)ವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಉೇಖ ಉೇಖ ಉೇಖ ಉೇಖ (4) ರರರರ ಪತ+ದನ‰ಯ ಪತ+ದನ‰ಯ ಪತ+ದನ‰ಯ ಪತ+ದನ‰ಯ ೆಂಗಳರು ೆಂಗಳರು ೆಂಗಳರು ೆಂಗಳರು ಅgವೃLh ಅgವೃLh ಅgವೃLh ಅgವೃLh ^ಾ+ಾರLಂದ ^ಾ+ಾರLಂದ ^ಾ+ಾರLಂದ ^ಾ+ಾರLಂದ ಸಂpೆ7 ಸಂpೆ7 ಸಂpೆ7 ಸಂpೆ7: ೆಂಅ^ಾ+ ೆಂಅ^ಾ+ ೆಂಅ^ಾ+ ೆಂಅ^ಾ+/ನeೕಸ ನeೕಸ ನeೕಸ ನeೕಸ/ಎಂಐಎP ಎಂಐಎP ಎಂಐಎP ಎಂಐಎP-426/335/2020-21, LFಾಂಕ LFಾಂಕ LFಾಂಕ LFಾಂಕ: 24-09-2020 ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ]ೕ ]ೕ ]ೕ ]ೕRರುವ Rರುವ Rರುವ Rರುವ ಆ?ೇಶ ಆ?ೇಶ ಆ?ೇಶ ಆ?ೇಶ ಪತ+ದ ಪತ+ದ ಪತ+ದ ಪತ+ದ Fೈಜೆಯ Fೈಜೆಯ Fೈಜೆಯ Fೈಜೆಯ ಬ*ೆŠ ಬ*ೆŠ ಬ*ೆŠ ಬ*ೆŠ ನಗರ ನಗರ ನಗರ ನಗರ eೕಜಕ eೕಜಕ eೕಜಕ eೕಜಕ ಸದಸ7ರು ಸದಸ7ರು ಸದಸ7ರು ಸದಸ7ರು, ೆಂಗಳರು ೆಂಗಳರು ೆಂಗಳರು ೆಂಗಳರು ಅgವೃLh ಅgವೃLh ಅgವೃLh ಅgವೃLh ^ಾ+ಾರ ^ಾ+ಾರ ^ಾ+ಾರ ^ಾ+ಾರ ರವರನು; ರವರನು; ರವರನು; ರವರನು; ಉೇಖ ಉೇಖ ಉೇಖ ಉೇಖ (7) ರರರರ ಪತ+ದಂೆ ಪತ+ದಂೆ ಪತ+ದಂೆ ಪತ+ದಂೆ ೋರಾCತು5 ೋರಾCತು5 ೋರಾCತು5 ೋರಾCತು5. ನಗರ eೕಜಕ ಸದಸ7ರು (ಪ), ೆಂಗಳರು ಅgವೃLh ^ಾ+ಾರ ರವರು LFಾಂಕ: 06-04- 2021 ರಂದು ಈ ಕXೇE*ೆ ಉೇಖ (8) ರಂೆ ಪತ+ ಬ&ೆದು ಉೇಖ (4) ರ ಪತ+ವ! ನಕ/dಾCರುವ!ದEಂದ ಸದE ಪತ+ದನ‰ಯ dಾವ!?ೇ ಅನುmೕದFೆ*ೆ ಪEಗaಸ ಾರ?ೆಂದು Y%4ರುಾ5&ೆ. ಆದುದEಂದ ಾವ! ೆಂಗಳರು ಅgವೃLh ^ಾ+ಾರದ ಉೇಖ (4) ರಂೆ ಸ/4ದ@ ಪತ+ದನ‰ಯ ಪEಗaಸಾCದ@ ಕಟ2ಡ ಮಂಜೂ&ಾY ನlೆಯ ಪ+8ಾ5ವFೆ*ೆ ಸಂಬಂ4ದಂೆ ^ಾ+ಾರವ! ಉೇಖ (8) ರ/ ಉೇಖ (4) ರ ಪತ+ವ! ನಕ/ ಪತ+=ೆಂದು Y%4ರುವ!ದEಂದ ತಮ*ೆ ಕಟ2ಡ ನlೆ ಮಂಜೂ&ಾY ]ೕಡಲು ರಹ ಇರುವ!Lಲ=ೆಂದು Y%ಸುಾ5, ಕೂಡೇ ಸ‰Y5ನ/ ]Vಾಣದ ಾಮ*ಾEಯನು; ಸuCತ*ೊ%ಸಲು ಸೂŽ4?ೆ. ಮುಂದುವ&ೆದಂೆ ಪEಷ‹ತ Vಾಸ2 ^ಾJ - 2015 ರ ಭೂ ಉಪeೕಗದ ನlೆಯನ‰ಯ ಸ‰Y5ನ/ "ಾದು"ೋಗುವ ಉ?ೆ@ೕGತ 18.00 :ೕ ಅಗಲದ ರ8ೆ5ಯನು; ಾ_@E4 ]ಯVಾವ%ಯನ‰ಯ ನlೆಗಳನು; ಪEಷBE4 ಸ/4ದ ನಂತರ ಕಟ2ಡ ಮಂಜೂ&ಾY ನlೆ ಪ+8ಾ5ವFೆಯನು; ]ಯVಾನು8ಾರ ಪEGೕ/4 ಮುಂLನ ಕ+ಮ ವqಸಾಗುವ!?ೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮ*ೆ Y%ಸಾC?ೆ. 19 ¸À»/- ಜಂi ]?ೇಶಕರು (ನಗರ eೕಜFೆ - ಉತ5ರ) ಬೃಹ• ೆಂಗಳರು ಮ"ಾನಗರ ^ಾ/ೆ.” (Emphasis added) The petitioners then approach this Court challenging the said endorsement only to be withdrawn later, to pursue the remedy under the Act. Shifting of the road was then sought by filing an application under Section 14A of the Act. The application was not considered. Therefore, the petitioners were before this Court in Writ Petition No.353 of 2022. During the pendency of the said writ petition, an endorsement rejecting the claim was issued and the writ petition comes to be disposed of by the following order: “ORDER This petition is structured on the following prayers: “a) a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to shift the proposed road measuring 18.00 meters from the middle of the western side of the property to the extreme western side of the schedule property by considering the representation made by the petitioners on 26.11.2021 at Annexure-W. b) a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.3 to approve the building plan with respect to residential apartment being constructed over land bearing present BBMP Katha No.2430/75, converted Land bearing Sy.No.75 measuring 01 acres 36 gunta, situated at Rachenahalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. 20 2. After service of notice the answering respondent having entered appearance submits that the petition has become infructuous in view of issuance of endorsement dated 08.03.2022, a copy whereof is at Annexure R-1 to the Statement of Objections. He is justified in making this submission. 3. In view of the above, a fresh cause of action having been accrued, this petition does not survive for consideration and therefore accordingly is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to lay a challenge to the subject endorsement in accordance with law. All contentions are kept open to both the sides.” The endorsement that is now challenged is as follows: “ಇವE*ೆ, G+ೕ.ಅಂ‘ೋ] &ಾಜು HJ ೇo &ಾಯಪI ಮY5ತರರು, &ಾ'ೇನಹ%) *ಾ+ಮ, ೆ.ಆ .ಪ!ರ "ೋಬ%, ೆಂಗಳರು -560 077. Vಾನ7&ೆ, ಷಯ: ೆಂಗಳರು ಪವ ಾಲೂಕು, ೆ.ಆ .ಪ!ರ "ೋಬ%, &ಾ'ೇನಹ%) *ಾ+ಮದ ಸ=ೆ ನಂ.75 ರ ^ೈ€ ಮತು5 76 ರ ^ೈ€ ಪ+8ಾ5zತ 18.0:ೕ ಅಗಲದ ರ8ೆ5*ಾC ಾ_@E4ರುವ 453.22 ಚ.:ೕ 45ೕಣದ ಪ+?ೇಶವನು; ರ8ೆ5 ಉಪeೕಗLಂದ ವಸY ಉಪeೕಗೆB ಭೂಉಪeೕಗ ಬದಾವjೆ*ಾC ೋEರುವ ಬ*ೆŠ. ಉೇಖ: 1) ತಮ’ ಪತ+ "ಾಗೂ ಭೂಉಪeೕಗ ಬದಾವjೆ ಅ LFಾಂಕ: 26.11.2021. 2) Vಾನ7 ಉಚ• Fಾ7dಾಲಯದ W.P No.12506/2021 ರ ಆ?ೇಶ LFಾಂಕ 21.09.2021. 3) ಸಾರದ ಭೂಉಪeೕಗ ಬದಾವjೆಯ VಾಗಸೂŽ (*ೈ“ 21 ೈJ”) ಆ?ೇಶ ¸ÀASÉå: UDD 165 BMR 2012, LFಾಂಕ 12/10/2012. *** `ೕ/ನ ಷಯೆB ಸಂಬಂ4ದಂೆ, ಉೇಖ (1) ರ/ ೆಂಗಳರು ಪವ ಾಲೂಕು, ೆ.ಆ .ಪ!ರ "ೋಬ%, &ಾ'ೇನಹ%) *ಾ+ಮದ ಸ=ೆ ನಂ.75 ರ ^ೈ€ ಮತು5 76 ರ ^ೈ€ ಪ+8ಾ5zತ 18.0:ೕ ಅಗಲದ ರ8ೆ5*ಾC ಾ_@E4ರುವ 453.22 ಚ.:ೕ 45ೕಣದ ಪ+?ೇಶವನು; ರ8ೆ5 ಉಪeೕಗLಂದ ವಸY ಉಪeೕಗೆB ಭೂಉಪeೕಗ ಬದಾವjೆ ೋEರುವ ಬ*ೆŠ ಪEGೕ/ಸಾ_ತು. ಸಾರLಂದ LFಾಂಕ 25/06/2007 ರಂದು ಅನುmೕದFೆ*ೊಂಡ RMP-2015 ರಂೆ &ಾ'ೇನಹ%) *ಾ+ಮದ ಸ=ೆ ನಂ.75 ಮತು5 76 ರ ಪ+?ೇಶವ! Kಾಗಶ:=ಾC ವಸY ವಲಯದ/ ಉ?ೆ@ೕGತ 18.0:ೕ ಅಗಲದ ರ8ೆ5 ಇರುತ5?ೆ. ಈ ^ೈ€ ಉ?ೆ@ೕGತ ರ8ೆ5*ಾC ಾ_@E4ರುವ 453.22 ಚ.:ೕ 45ೕಣದ ಪ+?ೇಶವನು; ಕFಾಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತು5 *ಾ+Vಾಂತರ eೕಜFಾ ಾ<@ 1961 ರ ಕಲಂ 14-ಎ ರRಯ/ ರ8ೆ5 ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶLಂದ ವಸY ಉ?ೆ@ೕಶಾBC ಪ+8ಾ5ವFೆಯನು; ಸ/ಸಾCರುತ5?ೆ. ಉೇಖ (2) ರ Vಾನ7 ಉಚ• Fಾ7dಾಲಯದ W.P No.12506/2021(BDA) ರ ಆ?ೇಶ LFಾಂಕ 21.09.2021 ರ ಆ?ೇಶದ/ G+ೕ.ಅಂ‘ೋ] &ಾಜು HJ ೇo &ಾಯಪI ಮY5ತರರು, (=ಾLಗಳZ) Vಾನ7 Fಾ7dಾಲಯದ/ ?ಾ=ೆಯನು; qಂಪkೆಯಾCರುವ ಾರಣ ಾ<@ಯನ‰ಯ ಸfಮ ^ಾ+ಾರೆB ಸೂಕ5=ಾC ಮನ ಯನು; ಸ/ಸುವಂೆ Y%4 ?ಾ=ೆಯನು; ವTಾ VಾಡಾCರುತ5?ೆ. ಉೇಖ (3)ರ/ ಸಾರದ ಕFಾಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತು5 *ಾ+Vಾಂತರ eೕಜFಾ ಾ<@ 1961 ರ ಕಲಂ 14-ಎ ರRಯ/ ೈ*ೊಳ)ಬಹು?ಾದ ಪ+8ಾ5ವFೆಗಳ ಕುEತು Vಾಗ ಸೂŽ (*ೈ“ ೈJ) ಯನು; ಆ?ೇಶ ¸ÀASÉå : UDD 165 BMR 2012, LFಾಂಕ 12/10/2012 gÀ°è£À PÀArPÉ (B) General Instruction G¥À ಕಂRೆ 16 (H) ರ/ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡಂೆ ಉೇ•ಸಾC?ೆ. 16. Changes of land use proposals shall not be submitted to the Government under the following circumstances: b. Lands coming in the alignment of existing / proposed road of master plan ಎಂದು ಉೇ•4?ೆ. `ೕೆ ]ೕಡಾCರುವ ಭೂಉಪeೕಗ ಬದಾವjೆ*ೆ ]ೕಡಾದ VಾಗಸೂŽಯ/ ಸಾರವ! ಸIಷ–=ಾC ಇಂತಹ ಪ+8ಾ5ವFೆಗಳನು; ಪEಗaಸ ಾರ?ೆಂದು ಆ?ೇG4ರುತ5?ೆ. 22 ಮುಂದುವ&ೆದು ಕFಾಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತು5 *ಾ+Vಾಂತರ eೕಜFಾ ಾ<@ 1961 ರ ಕಲಂ 69/2 (b) ಮತು5 12(b) ರRಯ/ಯೂ ಸಹ 8ಾವಜ]ಕ ಸ‰ೆ5ಂದು ಗುರುY4ರುವ ಪ+?ೇಶಗಳZ ಮೂಲ 8ೌಕಯಗಳFಾ;C 8ಾವಜ]ಕ ಉಪeೕಗಾBC ಬರುವಂತಹ ಪ+?ೇಶಗ%*ೆ dಾವ!?ೇ ಬದಾವjೆ Vಾಡಲು ಅವಾಶ ರುವ!Lಲ. `ೕಲBಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳ qFೆ;ೆಯ/ ]ೕವ! ೋEರುವ ೆಂಗಳರು ಪವ ಾಲೂಕು, ೆ.ಆ .ಪ!ರ "ೋಬ%, &ಾ'ೇನಹ%) *ಾ+ಮದ ಸ=ೆ ನಂ.75 ರ ^ೈ€ ಮತು5 76 ರ ^ೈ€ ಪ+8ಾ5zತ 18.0:ೕ ಅಗಲದ ರ8ೆ5*ಾC ಾ_@E4ರುವ 453.22 ಚ.:ೕ 45ೕಣದ ಪ+?ೇಶವನು; ರ8ೆ5 ಉಪeೕಗLಂದ ವಸY ಉಪeೕಗಾBC ಾ<@ಯನ‰ಯ ಭೂಉಪeೕಗ ಬದಾವjೆ ಪ+8ಾ5ವFೆಯನು; ಪEಗaಸಲು ಅವಾಶ ಲLರುವ ಾರಣ ಉೇಖ (1) ರ/ ಸ/4ರುವ ಪ+8ಾ5ವFೆಯನು; YರಸBEಸಾC?ೆ ಎಂಬ ಅಂಶವನು; ಈ ಮೂಲಕ Y%ಯಪRಸಾC?ೆ. (ಕರಡು ಪತ+ವ! ನ.eೕ.ಸ ರವEಂದ ಅನುmೕLಸಲIi2?ೆ ತಮ’ …ಾ‰4 ¸À»/-08/03/2022 ನಗರ eೕಜಕ ಸದಸ7ರುರವರ ಪರ=ಾC ೆಂಅ^ಾ+, ೆಂಗಳರು.” What is discernible from the communication of the BDA and the BBMP is that the request can be considered if the road is shifted to the extreme western side of ‘A’ schedule property. Therefore, it is a case where it is shiftable. 12. It now becomes necessary to notice the statutory frame work and the interpretation of the statutory frame work. This Court 23 considered the entire spectrum of law in Writ Petition No.50462 of 2019 disposed on 02-06-2023 holding as follows: “…. …. …. 15. In the light of the aforesaid facts and mandate of the statute, reference being made to the judgments rendered by this Court, on the issue, both by the Division Bench and that of the learned single Judge becomes apposite. The Division Bench in the case of BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. Y. BAYAPPA REDDY (supra) has held as follows: “12. Section 69(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 makes it very clear that in the matter of construction of road, the proceedings will not at all lapse even if the period of five years is over and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned single Judge could not have passed an order holding that the writ petitioner is entitled to proceed with the development of his site. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned single Judge in Review Petition Nos. 68 of 2016 and 83-88 of 216 deserves to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside.” (Emphasis supplied) The Division Bench after quoting and noticing Section 12 and its purport and Section 69 and its purport has held that the lands held by the Planning Authority in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act would not lapse. Much earlier to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench, a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of VIDYA VIKAS EDUCATIONAL TRUST (supra) has held as follows: “7. S. 12 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) specifies the contents of master plan and the same reads as under: “12. Contents of Master Plan : (1) The Master Plan shall consist of a series of maps and documents indicating 24 the manner in which the development and improvement of the entire planning area within the jurisdiction of the Planning Authority are to be carried out and regulated, such plan shall include proposals for the following namely,— a. Zoning of land use for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, educational and other purposes together with Zoning Regulations; b. A complete street pattern, indicating major and minor roads, national highways, and state highways, and traffic circulation pattern, for meeting immediate and future requirements with proposals for improvements; c. areas reserved for parks, playgrounds, and other recreational uses, public open spaces, public buildings and institutions and area reserved for such other purposes as may be expedient for new civic developments; d. areas earmarked for future development and expansion; e. xxx f. xxx g. xxx By Act No. 1 of 2005 S. 69 came to be substituted with effect from 14-2-2005 by new Section as under: “69. Acquisition of land designated for certain purposes in a Master Plan: (1) The Planning Authority may acquire any land designated in a Master Plan for specified purpose in clause (b), (c) or (d) of sub section(1) of section 12, or for any public purpose out of those specified land in clause (a) of sub-section(1) of section 12 by agreement or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (Central Act I of 1894) as in force in the State. If the land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the provisions of said Act as amended by S. 72 of the Act shall apply to the determination of compensation for the acquisition of such land. (2) If the designated land, except land specified for the purpose in clause (b) of sub- section(1) of section 12, is not acquired by agreement within five years from the date, the 25 Master Plan is published in the gazette under sub- section(4) of section 13 or if the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced within such period the designation shall be deemed to have been lapsed.” 8. A reading of the above Section specifies that the lands designated for the purpose of major and minor roads, national high ways, state high ways etc., shall not be lapsed even if they are not acquired within the stipulated time of 5 years from the date of publication of master plan. in the instant case in the master plan the lands in question are designated for the purpose of roads. Therefore even if the lands in question are not acquired, the designation of lands as roads will not lapse. Therefore the respondents are well within their power insisting on the petitioner to leave the road under the impugned endorsement. 9. Petitioner contends that it has given a representation on 15-12-2008 as per Annexure L to third respondent requesting to make necessary changes in the comprehensive development plan and to delete the designated road in the property of the petitioner. Again on 4-2-2009 the petitioner gave a reminder as per Annexure L-1. Even to this day third respondent has not considered the request of the petitioner as per Annexure L and L1. It is obligatory on the part of third respondent to consider the request of the petitioner.” (Emphasis supplied) Therefore, in the light of the mandate of law and its interpretation by the Division Bench and the learned single Judge of this Court, the petitioners have not made out a case of demonstrable right, to remedy their grievance, by issuance of a mandamus at the hands of this Court, 35 as the action of the Planning Authority is permitted in law and the redressal of the grievance of the petitioners, for now is prohibited in law.” (Emphasis supplied) 26 Learned Counsel for the BDA has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court which was in fact following the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.2679 of 2018 decided on 10-03-2021. The Division Bench had clearly held that once reserved for public purpose it must not be open to consider any change of land use or acquisition can be called in question. 13. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that right to property as obtaining under Section 300-A of the Constitution is put to jeopardy. It is an admitted fact that for the last 18 years the BDA is holding the property for the proposed road. There is no proposal placed before this Court. The proposal is yet to emerge is an admitted fact. Therefore, it is ununderstandable as to how long the BDA could hold the property of a private citizen, on the specious plea of an emerging proposal in future. 14. It becomes necessary to notice certain judgments of the Apex Court emphasizing right to property. 27 14.1. The Apex Court in the case of HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED v. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI1, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 6. It is not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of “eminent domain” may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid. … … … 9. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion as regards the public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. The State in its decision-making process must not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable important right and having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution it has been held to be akin to a fundamental right.” (Emphasis supplied) 14.2. Again, the Apex Court in the case of TUKARAM KANA JOSHI v. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION2, holds as follows: 1 (2005) 7 SCC 627 28 “…. …. …. 17. Depriving the appellants of their immovable properties was a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. In a welfare State, statutory authorities are bound, not only to pay adequate compensation, but there is also a legal obligation upon them to rehabilitate such persons. The non-fulfilment of their obligations would tantamount to forcing the said uprooted persons to become vagabonds or to indulge in anti-national activities as such sentiments would be born in them on account of such ill-treatment. Therefore, it is not permissible for any welfare State to uproot a person and deprive him of his fundamental/constitutional/human rights, under the garb of industrial development.” (Emphasis supplied) In both the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court holds that depriving a person of immovable property is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Though these cases were concerning payment of compensation, right to property was held to be a constitutional right. 14.3. The Apex Court in the case of KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. BIMAL KUMAR SHAH3, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 30. What then are these sub-rights or strands of this swadeshi constitutional fabric constituting the right to property? 2 (2013) 1 SCC 353 3 (2024) 10 SCC 533 29 Seven such sub-rights can be identified, albeit non-exhaustive. These are: (i) The duty of the State to inform the person that it intends to acquire his property — the right to notice, (ii) The duty of the State to hear objections to the acquisition — the right to be heard, (iii) The duty of the State to inform the person of its decision to acquire — the right to a reasoned decision, (vi) The duty of the State to demonstrate that the acquisition is for public purpose — the duty to acquire only for public purpose, (v) The duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate —the right of restitution or fair compensation, (vi) The duty of the State to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the proceedings — the right to an efficient and expeditious process, and (vii) The final conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting — the right of conclusion. 31. These seven rights are foundational components of a law that is tune with Article 300-A, and the absence of one of these or some of them would render the law susceptible to challenge. The judgment of this Court in K.T. Plantation declares that the law envisaged under Article 300-A must be in line with the overarching principles of rule of law, and must be just, fair, and reasonable. It is, of course, precedentially sound to describe some of these sub- rights as “procedural”, a nomenclature that often tends to undermine the inherent worth of these safeguards. These seven sub-rights may be procedures, but they do constitute the real content of the right to property under Article 300-A, non- compliance of these will amount to violation of the right, being without the authority of law. 30 … 33. Following are the seven principles: 33.1.The Right to notice 33.1.1. A prior notice informing the bearer of the right that the State intends to deprive them of the right to property is a right in itself; a linear extension of the right to know embedded in Article 19(1)(a). The Constitution does not contemplate acquisition by ambush. The notice to acquire must be clear, cogent and meaningful. Some of the statutes reflect this right. 33.1.2. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 3(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 are examples of such statutory incorporation of the right to notice before initiation of the land acquisition proceedings. 33.1.3. In a large number of decisions, our constitutional courts have independently recognised the right to notice before any process of acquisition is commenced. 33.2.The Right to be heard 33.2.1. Following the right to a meaningful and effective prior notice of acquisition, is the right of the property-bearer to communicate his objections and concerns to the authority acquiring the property. This right to be heard against the proposed acquisition must be meaningful and not a sham. 33.2.2. Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 3(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Section 3-C of the National Highways Act, 1956, are some statutory embodiments of this right. 31 33.2.3. Judicial opinions recognising the importance of this right are far too many to reproduce. Suffice it to say that that the enquiry in which a landholder would raise his objection is not a mere formality. 33.3.The Right to a reasoned decision 33.3.1. That the authorities have heard and considered the objections is evidenced only through a reasoned order. It is incumbent upon the authority to take an informed decision and communicate the same to the objector. 33.3.2. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 3(2) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Section 3-D of the National Highways Act, 1956, are the statutory incorporations of this principle. 33.3.3. Highlighting the importance of the declaration of the decision to acquire, the Courts have held that the declaration is mandatory, failing which, the acquisition proceedings will cease to have effect. 33.4.The Duty to acquire only for public purpose 33.4.1. That the acquisition must be for a public purpose is inherent and an important fetter on the discretion of the authorities to acquire. This requirement, which conditions the purpose of acquisition must stand to reason with the larger constitutional goals of a welfare State and distributive justice. 33.4.2. Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 3(1) and 7(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Sections 2(1), 11(1), 15(1)(b) and 19(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 depict the statutory incorporation of the public purpose requirement of compulsory acquisition. 32 33.4.3. The decision of compulsory acquisition of land is subject to judicial review and the Court will examine and determine whether the acquisition is related to public purpose. If the Court arrives at a conclusion that that there is no public purpose involved in the acquisition, the entire process can be set aside. This Court has time and again reiterated the importance of the underlying objective of acquisition of land by the State to be for a public purpose. 33.5.The Right of restitution or fair compensation 33.5.1. A person's right to hold and enjoy property is an integral part to the constitutional right under Article 300-A. Deprivation or extinguishment of that right is permissible only upon restitution, be it in the form of monetary compensation, rehabilitation or other similar means. Compensation has always been considered to be an integral part of the process of acquisition. 33.5.2. Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 8 and 9 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 23 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Sections 3-G and 3-H of the National Highways Act, 1956 are the statutory incorporations of the right to restitute a person whose land has been compulsorily acquired. 33.5.3. Our courts have not only considered that compensation is necessary, but have also held that a fair and reasonable compensation is the sine qua non for any acquisition process. 33.6.The Right to an efficient and expeditious process 33.6.1. The acquisition process is traumatic for more than one reason. The administrative delays in identifying the land, conducting the enquiry and evaluating the objections, leading to a final declaration, consume time and energy. Further, passing of the award, payment of compensation and taking over the possession are equally time-consuming. It is necessary for the 33 administration to be efficient in concluding the process and within a reasonable time. This obligation must necessarily form part of Article 300-A. 33.6.2. Sections 5-A(1), 6, 11-A and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 6(1-A) and 9 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Sections 4(2), 7(4), 7(5), 11(5), 14, 15(1), 16(1), 19(2), 25, 38(1), 60(4), 64 and 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Sections 3-C(1), 3-D(3) and 3-E(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, prescribe for statutory frameworks for the completion of individual steps in the process of acquisition of land within stipulated timelines. 33.6.3. On multiple occasions, upon failure to adhere to the timelines specified in law, the courts have set aside the acquisition proceedings. 33.7.The Right of conclusion 33.7.1. Upon conclusion of process of acquisition and payment of compensation, the State takes possession of the property in normal circumstances. The culmination of an acquisition process is not in the payment of compensation, but also in taking over the actual physical possession of the land. If possession is not taken, acquisition is not complete. With the taking over of actual possession after the normal procedures of acquisition, the private holding is divested and the right, title and interest in the property, along with possession is vested in the State. Without final vesting, the State's, or its beneficiary's right, title and interest in the property is inconclusive and causes lot of difficulties. The obligation to conclude and complete the process of acquisition is also part of Article 300-A. 33.7.2. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4 and 5 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Sections 37 and 38 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Sections 3-D 34 and 3-E of the National Highways Act, 1956, statutorily recognise this right of the acquirer. 33.7.3. This step of taking over of possession has been a matter of great judicial scrutiny and this Court has endeavoured to construe the relevant provisions in a way which ensures non-arbitrariness in this action of the acquirer. For that matter, after taking over possession, the process of land acquisition concludes with the vesting of the land with the authority concerned. The culmination of an acquisition process by vesting has been a matter of great importance. On this aspect, the courts have given a large number of decisions as to the time, method and manner by which vesting takes place.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in BIMAL KUMAR SHAH considers the concept of acquisition of land and holds that it is the duty of the State to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timeline. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in BIMAL KUMAR SHAH, the emphasis is cemented insofar as right to immovable property of the person is concerned. 15. The respondents/BDA is holding on the right it has under the Act, in terms of Section 69. Section 69 of the Act reads as follows: “69. Acquisition of land designated for certain purposes in a Master Plan.- (1) The Planning Authority may 35 acquire any land designated in a Master Plan for a specified purpose in clause (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) of section 12, or for any public purpose out of those specified land in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 by agreement or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) as in force in the State. If the land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the provisions of said Act as amended by section 72 of this Act shall apply to the determination of compensation for the acquisition of such land. (2) If the designated land, except land specified for the purpose in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12, is not acquired by agreement within five years from the date, the Master Plan is published in the gazette under sub-section (4) of section 13 or if the proceedings under Land Acquisition Act are not commenced within such period the designation shall be deemed to have been lapsed.” (Emphasis supplied) Sub-section (2) of Section 69 holds that when a designated land is not acquired within five years from the date on which the Master Plan is published in the Gazette or if the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced, the designation of such land is deemed to have lapsed. This is the first part of Section 69(2). The second part deals with an exception that is carved out where the lands are earmarked for the purpose enumerated under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act. Section 12(1)(b) of the Act reads as follows: 36 “12. Contents of Master Plan.- (1) The Master Plan shall consist of a series of maps and documents indicating the manner in which the development and improvement of the entire planning area within the jurisdiction of the Planning Authority are to be carried out and regulated, such plan shall include proposals for the following, namely:- … … … (b) a complete street pattern, indicating major and minor roads, national highways, and state highways, and traffic circulation pattern, for meeting immediate and future requirements with proposals for improvements;” (Emphasis supplied) Section 12(1)(b) deals with contents of a Master Plan. The proposals are with regard to major and minor roads, national and state highways and traffic circulation pattern for immediate and future requirements with proposals for improvements. This is the exception that the BDA hinges upon for holding the land for a period of 18 years for the proposed road. 16. Though the mandate of Section 69(2) is considered by this Court, there is a change in judicial thought by the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench, after the judgment rendered by this Court quoted supra. A coordinate Bench in the case of 37 MALLESH REDDY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA4, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, when a party approaches this Court pointing out to such colourable exercise of power in as much as the power to designate private lands for public purpose being over and over again earmarked for such purposes in succeeding master plans it should be held that the authority is abusing its powers. Having regard to the facts obtained in the present case, it is clear that at the first instance when the petitioner made an application in the year 2010, the application was rejected on the same ground that the then Anekal Planning Authority, in its master plan had earmarked a part of the land for formation of STRR. It is thus clear that the earmarking of the land in question for formation of STRR commenced even prior to the year 2005 and it was crystallized by issuance of a notification at the instance of Bangalore Metro Rail (BMR) and notification of interim master plan by order dated 21.09.2005. This Court should take note of such facts and the predicament of the persons like the petitioners. If a land is earmarked and designated for such public purpose for decades together as in the present case for nearly 20 years, having regard to the fact that the designation was first made on 21.09.2005 and continuous till date, the owners of the land will be deprived of opportunity to put the land to beneficial use. This is the reason why this Court is of the considered opinion that if in the master plan there is a repetition of the designation and earmarking of private lands for public purpose, it would amount to colourable exercise of power. The exception carved out under sub section (2) of Section 69 cannot be misused by the State and the Planning authority in repeating the designation of land in every successive master plan. The intention of the legislature in carving out an exception in cases of formation of roads, when compared to park and open spaces as provided in sub- section (2) of Section 69 is to give a little bit of leeway to 4 W.P.No.8455 of 2023 decided on 04-03-2024 38 the State and the planning authority to acquire or purchase the land having regard to the fact and inevitable circumstances where the alignment of the roads cannot be altered. Nevertheless, it would be unacceptable that State and the Planning Authority may take advantage of such exception carved out in sub section (2) of Section 69 and go on earmarking or designating private lands for public use in successive master plan and prevent the land owners from the beneficial use of the properties for decades together. The rights guaranteed by the constitution under Article 300A of the Constitution of India has also been noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various such cases including the LAXMIKANTH (supra) and therefore it was held that once an embargo has been put on a landowner not to use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period. …. …. …. 12. This court has also taken note of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed in the case of LAXMIKANTH (supra) that it would be impermissible for the courts to direct the State to acquire any piece of land. However, that should not prevent the Deputy Commissioner from getting the requisite information as to the extent of land that may be required for formation of STRR and proceed to pass orders for conversion of the remaining extent of land. 13. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District that he shall forthwith call for all the relevant information from the planning authority as to the extent of land that may be required for formation of the STRR on the land in question. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner shall proceed to pass necessary orders for conversion in respect of the remaining extent of land. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” (Emphasis supplied) 39 The coordinate Bench observes that all that the exception carved out for formation of road would not lapse qua designation of land sought to be acquired by the Planning Authority, but the land owner cannot be deprived of the right of usage for decades. The coordinate Bench also opines that once an embargo is put on the land owner not to use the land in a particular manner, it cannot be for an indefinite period. 17. It is no doubt true that the land belonging to the petitioners has been shown as a proposed road in the Master Plan 2015 which came in to effect in the year 2007 and for 18 years not a drop of ink has fallen on any proposal of the BDA as to how the road would be formed. The sketch is appended to the petition. In the sketch, as obtaining in the Master Plan, no doubt the road passes through the property. The proposal is submitted by the petitioners for shifting of the road to the extreme western side of ‘A’ schedule property. It is also a fact that buildings have come up all around the proposed road. It is locked by buildings and the petitioners’ property stands in between. The learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla has also taken this Court through the Master Plan 40 and the sketch to demonstrate that the road can be shifted to the other area as is sought. In that event, right to property by the petitioner would not be deprived. 18. In the light of the judgment of the coordinate Bench, I deem it appropriate to direct the BDA to consider the application of the petitioner after determination as to which portion of the petitioners’ land is required for formation of road, as the BDA does not have a plan as on date as to which portion of the land is required and if it is feasible to shift the road, the BDA shall also consider the same, owing to the circumstance of impossibility of formation of road as projected by the petitioners. Therefore, the observations of the Apex Court with regard to right to immovable property of the citizen under Article 300-A of the Constitution would not be rendered illusory. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is allowed in part. 41 (ii) Endorsement dated 08-03-2022 issued by the 4th respondent/BDA stands quashed. (iii) The application of the petitioners dated 17-07-2019 shall be considered and necessary orders be passed in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order, all in an outer limit of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ