- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35813 WP No. 10536 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 10536 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: M/S VIRGINIA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, NO.2981, 4TH FLOOR, 12TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560008. REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MR. DHARMARAJ T., S/O MR. S. THIRUNAVUKKARASU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU-560001. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002. REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35813 WP No. 10536 of 2024 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (NORTH) TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002. 5. KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR . 6. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., 3RD FLOOR, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, OPP ORION MALL, DR. RAJAKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K.B.MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; SRI. VIJAY KUMAR V.B., ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) DIRECTION DIRECTING THAT THE ACTION OF BBMP-R2 TO 4 IN IMPOSING A REQUIREMENT TO RELINQUISH THE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER DESIGNED FOR ROAD WIDENING IN THE MASTER PLAN FREE OF COST WITH THE RESPONDENT -BBMP AS A PRECONDITION FOR ISSUANCE OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE / SANCTIONING OF THE BUILDING PLAN IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A DECLARATION HOLDING THE DEED OF RELINQUISHMENT DTD. 09/06/2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-P IS VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35813 WP No. 10536 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: " i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that the action of BBMP-Respondents No.2 to No.4 in imposing a requirement to relinquish the property belonging to the petitioner designed for road widening in the Master Plan free of cost with the respondent - BBMP as a precondition for issuance of the Occupancy Certificate/sanctioning of the Building Plan is violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently issue a declaration holding the Deed of Relinquishment Dated: 09/06/2016 issued by the petitioner vide Annexure-P as null & void, and unenforceable against the petitioner by the respondent authorities; and ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction, directing the respondents to follow due process of law under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35813 WP No. 10536 of 2024 Act, 2013 by initiating acquisition proceedings and by paying compensation/TDR, if the respondent authorities intend to use any portion of the property belonging to the petitioner which are earmarked for the purpose of road widening in the Revised Master Plan 2015; and iii. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, proper, necessary and expedient in the circumstance of the case." 2. The petitioner–company asserts that it is engaged in the business of development works in India and is the owner of property bearing Katha No.948/639/10/11/12/1. The material facts are largely undisputed. The petitioner, being the owner of the said land, submitted an application seeking approval of a sanction plan for construction of a commercial complex. The Planning Authority, by order dated 20.04.2012, accorded approval to the plan subject to standard conditions, including reservation of certain areas for roads. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35813 WP No. 10536 of 2024 3. On 09.06.2016, the petitioner executed a registered relinquishment deed whereby the title in the portion of the land earmarked for road widening was conveyed to respondent No.2 – Planning Authority, free of cost and without any claim for compensation. Consequent upon such relinquishment, the Planning Authority issued a sanction plan permitting the petitioner to proceed with construction of a commercial complex. The petitioner further asserts that it had sought modification of the plan, which came to be considered by the BBMP, and the Planning Authority, accordingly, issued a modified sanction plan–cum–occupancy certificate on 02.03.2015. The modified plan–cum–occupancy certificate is produced at Annexure–G. 4. The petitioner, having executed the relinquishment deed (which fact is not in dispute), submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information regarding the commencement of road widening work. The authorities, in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35813 WP No. 10536 of 2024 response, indicated that no proposal for road widening had been undertaken between Marathalli and Varthur Kodi Junction up to Hope Farm, except for the proposed construction of an underpass at Kundalahalli Junction. 5. The petitioner contends that in view of the endorsement issued by the BBMP indicating that road widening over the subject property had been given up, it made several representations requesting the BBMP as well as respondent No.5 – Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited (KRDCL) to initiate acquisition proceedings for the land required for construction of the grade separator. It is asserted that the petitioner continues to remain in exclusive possession of the property which had been earmarked for road widening under the RMP 2015, as reflected in the approved plan dated 20.04.2012. 6. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, submits that despite the subject property being earmarked - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35813 WP No. 10536 of 2024 for road widening under the RMP 2015, the insistence of the Planning Authority to secure relinquishment of land free of cost as a precondition for sanction of the building plan is impermissible. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.9408/2020 and connected matters, wherein the validity of the Circular dated 29.02.2016 issued by the BBMP, mandating such relinquishment, was considered. This Court held that the said Circular was violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.15103/2022, wherein it was reiterated that the authorities cannot insist upon surrender of land earmarked for road widening in the RMP 2015, free of cost, either as a condition precedent for sanction of building plans or for grant of occupancy certificate. 7. In the above background, referring to the series of representations made, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the reliefs as set out supra. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35813 WP No. 10536 of 2024 8. The respondent–authorities have filed detailed statements of objection contending that the petitioner had voluntarily executed a registered relinquishment deed in 2016 in compliance with the conditions imposed while granting plan sanction. It is submitted that once such a registered relinquishment deed is executed, transferring rights in immovable property under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with the Registration Act, 1908, the present writ petition, filed nearly nine years thereafter, is barred by delay and laches. It is further contended that the relief sought necessarily involves cancellation of a registered instrument, which requires adjudication of disputed questions of fact, and the same can only be decided by a competent Civil Court. On this basis, dismissal of the petition is sought. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the BBMP, and learned counsel for respondent No.5. Records have been perused. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35813 WP No. 10536 of 2024 10. In the light of the rival submissions, the following points arise for consideration: 1) Whether in view of the recent decision rendered by the coordinate Bench in W.P.No.15103/2022 holding that planning authority cannot insist on surrender/relinquishment of a portion of a land earmarked for road widening indicated in the master plan, this Court in a writ jurisdiction, can undo a registered relinquishment deed executed by the petitioner in 2016 and consequently, issue a mandamus for restoration of title and possession? 2) Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate and efficacious remedy? Finding on Point Nos.1 and 2: 11. It is a settled proposition of law that a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies only to compel the performance of a statutory or public duty, or to restrain action undertaken without authority of law. Equally well settled is the principle that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35813 WP No. 10536 of 2024 questions relating to title of immovable property, the validity of private instruments, or cancellation of registered conveyances fall within the exclusive domain of the civil Court. Remedies under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide the appropriate forum for adjudication of such disputes. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not fashioned as a substitute for ordinary civil remedies, particularly where the adjudication of the lis would require reception of oral and documentary evidence, examination of the validity of registered documents, and consideration of issues such as estoppel, waiver, acquiescence, or other mixed questions of law and fact. 12. In the present case, the core of the petitioner’s claim rests upon challenging the registered relinquishment deed executed in the year 2016. The petitioner contends that the deed is vitiated because the precondition imposed by respondent No.2/BBMP/Planning Authority, requiring surrender of a portion of the property for road widening, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35813 WP No. 10536 of 2024 was beyond its authority and therefore illegal. The issue, however, is not merely one of examining the legality of the administrative condition. It involves a larger question whether the petitioner, having voluntarily executed the relinquishment deed pursuant to such condition, can now be permitted to contend that the transaction is void ab initio, or whether the relinquishment deed is only voidable at the instance of the transferor. Such a determination is not purely a legal exercise; it entails adjudication of mixed questions of law and fact, which necessarily fall within the province of a competent civil Court. 13. Once a registered relinquishment deed has been executed and remains valid and subsisting, it binds the parties to it unless it is set aside in a manner known to law. A registered instrument, by virtue of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with the Registration Act, 1908, carries statutory consequences by vesting title in the transferee. Administrative circulars, executive directions, or regulatory orders cannot have the effect of annulling or - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35813 WP No. 10536 of 2024 cancelling a registered instrument. Likewise, a writ of mandamus cannot be invoked to nullify the operation of a registered conveyance deed. The proper remedy available to a party aggrieved by such a transaction is to institute a civil suit seeking comprehensive declaratory relief, including cancellation of the registered document, in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 14. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has placed reliance upon recent judgments of coordinate Benches of this Court, wherein it has been held that a planning authority cannot insist upon surrender of private land, earmarked in the Revised Master Plan, as a precondition for approval of building plans or issuance of occupancy certificates. These pronouncements delineate the regulatory limits of the planning authority. However, the said judgments cannot be extended to obliterate or undo a registered conveyance executed by a landowner pursuant to such condition. The legal effect of a subsisting - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35813 WP No. 10536 of 2024 registered deed stands on a different footing altogether, and unless the deed is set aside through due process before a competent civil Court, the same continues to bind the parties thereto. 15. In the present case, however, the factual position is undisputed that the earmarked portion of the property stood conveyed by the petitioner under a registered relinquishment deed executed in the year 2016. The records further disclose that possession of the said portion has already been handed over to respondent No.5 for the purpose of implementing public projects intended to serve the larger interest of the community. Once such a registered conveyance has been executed and third-party rights have been created pursuant to a valid transfer, the petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 to nullify the legal consequences flowing from the said transaction. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35813 WP No. 10536 of 2024 16. A relinquishment deed, being a registered instrument of transfer, derives its efficacy from the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, read with the Registration Act, 1908, and carries with it the presumption of validity and enforceability unless annulled or cancelled by a competent civil Court in a duly instituted proceeding. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who apprehends serious injury therefrom, may institute a suit to have it adjudged void or voidable and seek its cancellation. Similarly, Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act enables a person entitled to any legal character or right to property to seek a declaratory decree. The petitioner, therefore, has an efficacious statutory remedy under the civil law to question the validity of the relinquishment deed. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bellachi vs. Pakeeran1, has held that a registered document carries 1 AIR 2009 SC 3293 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35813 WP No. 10536 of 2024 with it a presumption of validity and legality, and so long as the document is not set aside in a manner known to law, the rights flowing therefrom cannot be ignored. Likewise, in, Satya Pal Anand vss State of M.P. And Ors2, it was reiterated that unless a registered instrument is cancelled by a competent Court of law, the same continues to bind the parties and its legal consequences cannot be undone by administrative or executive directions. 18. In that view of the matter, unless and until the relinquishment deed executed in 2016 is challenged and set aside by a competent civil Court in accordance with law, the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to acquire the very same property and pay compensation. The issue of entitlement to compensation would arise for consideration only if the registered relinquishment deed is first annulled in a manner known to law. Accordingly, 2 2016 SCC Online SC 1202 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35813 WP No. 10536 of 2024 point No.1 formulated above is answered in the 'negative' and point No.2 is answered in the 'affirmative'. 19. For the reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed. The interim order granted earlier shall be in force for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4