- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33383 WP No. 14454 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14454 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: MARY IMMACULATE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER MYSORE REGISTRATION SOCIETIES ACT 1960 12TH MAIN, 15TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560030 REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON, SR. PHILOMENA DSOUZA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O LATE JOHN DSOUZA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33383 WP No. 14454 of 2026 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, (MUDA), J.L.B. ROAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MYSURU-570005. 3. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PLOT NO. G-5 AND 6, SECTOR-10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075. 4. SR. FLORINE PINTO, D/O LATE DAVID PINTO, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/A NO. 12TH MAIN, 15TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560030. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. SACHIN V.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RELINQUISHMENT DEED DATED 25/01/2022 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO. NJG-1-09641-2021-22 STORED IN C.D. NO. NJGD933 DATED 25/01/2021 IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR AT NANAJANAGUD, IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 02 AT THE INSTANCE OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 02 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N, THEREBY RESPONDENT NO. 02s ILLEGAL ACT OF FORCIBLY TAKING - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33383 WP No. 14454 of 2026 POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONERS LAND AS THE RESPONDENT NO. 04 DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THE ABOVE MENTIONED RELINQUISHMENT DEED; DIRECT THE MUDA TO RELEASE THE LAND ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED BY AND TRANSFERRED TO RESPONDENT NO. 03 TO THE PETITIONER; SET ASIDE THE CONVERSION ORDER TO THE LIMITED EXTENT THAT IT EARMARKS THE PETITIONERS LAND AS A PUBLIC ROAD; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO INITIATE FRESH ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS AND PAY COMPENSATION, AS THEY REQUIRE THE LAND FOR ROAD; DIRECT NHAI RESPONDENT NO. 03 AND RESPONDENT NO. 02 TO GRANT COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER AS PER LAW WITH INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF ACQUISITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: S CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, and the petitioner, in invoking this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has impugned the Relinquishment Deed dated 25.01.2022 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33383 WP No. 14454 of 2026 [Annexure-N] which is executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the Mysore Urban Development Authority [MUDA] [the second respondent]. 2. Sri Dilraj Rohit Sequeira, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must interfere with the Relinquishment Deed because of the following. [a] The fourth respondent, without authority in law has executed the Relinquishment Deed, undermining the petitioner's indisputable interest in the subject property. [b] The MUDA, acting under such Relinquishment Deed has handed over some portion of the subject property to the National Highways Authority of India [NHAI] [the third respondent]. [c] The petitioner is entitled to receive compensation for this land which is made over by the MUDA to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33383 WP No. 14454 of 2026 NHAI but because of the impugned Relinquishment Deed, the MUDA would be entitled to claim the amount and not the petitioner. 3. Sri Bopanna Belliappa, a learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the first respondent, is heard on whether this Court must interfere to jettison the Relinquishment Deed on the grounds urged. 4. This Court must opine that the circumstances upon which the petitioner relies upon to assert that the fourth respondent could not have executed the impugned Relinquishment Deed in favour of the second respondent is steeped in factual matrix, and therefore, the question must necessarily be examined in a properly instituted suit. 5. Further, this Court is also of the view that if the petitioner has grievance with the MUDA receiving - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33383 WP No. 14454 of 2026 compensation from NHAI or the NHAI not paying any compensation for the land utilized, that would also lie within the cause that the petitioner can set up based on its grievance with the fourth respondent executing the disputed Relinquishment Deed. As such, the following. ORDER The petition stands disposed of observing that the petitioner will be at liberty to avail civil remedy in the light of this Court's observation, but the liberty would be subject to all just exceptions in law. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-