- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4394 WP No. 3086 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3086 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. CECILIA LEWIS, W/O LATE JOSEPH LEWIS, AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS, R/AT NO. 3-20, JOSEPHS COTE KINNIGOLI TALIPADY, KINNIGOLI, MANGALURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST - 574 150. REP BY HER GPA HOLDER, SRI NICHOLAS CLAUDI LEWIS, S/O LATE JOSEPH LEWIS, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RAAGINI RAGHU., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. TH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPT, KSFC BUILDING, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4394 WP No. 3086 of 2025 NEAR DISTRICT PLAYGROUND, HOSAMEN BADAVANE ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. 4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TARUVE GRAM PANCHAYT, ATTIGERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577 113. 5. TARUVE GRAMA PANCHAYATH ATTIGERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 113. REP BY ITS PRESIDENT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPPANNA BELLIYAPPA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. ASHOK N. NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE CONDITION NO. 6 OF THE LETTER OF TECHNICAL APPROVAL DATED 13.08.2018 BEARING NO.NA GRA YO SANI.CHIMA. MUDIGERE TA. ATTIGERE GRAMA-32.TAM.VI.AA.2018- 19 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE LETTER DATED 17.12.2024 NO.NAGRAYOSANI.CHIMA/32/2018-19 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURES-A AND B AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4394 WP No. 3086 of 2025 I. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the condition No.6 of the letter of Technical Approval dated 13.08.2018 bearing No. NaGraYoSaNi:ChiMa: Mudigere Ta: Attigere Grama-32:Tam:Vi.Aa:2018- 19 issued by the 3rd Respondent and consequently set aside the letter dated 17.12.2024 No.NaGraYoSaNi:ChiMa/32/2018-19 issued by the 3rd Respondent vide Annexure-A and B. II. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the R3 to consider the representation dated 15.11.2024 for renewal of single plot development plan in favour of the petitioner without insisting for surrender of commercial property free of cost vide Annexure-C. III. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property bearing Survey No.109, measuring 2 acres and 5 guntas (including 5 guntas of kharab), situated at Attigere Village, Banakal Hobli, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagalur District, having acquired the same under a registered sale deed dated 19.05.2008. 3. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application before Respondent No.2 seeking conversion of the said land from agricultural to non-agricultural - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4394 WP No. 3086 of 2025 commercial purposes. Upon consideration of the said application, Respondent No.2, by Official Memorandum dated 13.08.2010, accorded approval for conversion of the land for non-agricultural commercial use (Hotel and Shop). 4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner approached the Planning Authority for approval of a Single Plot Development Plan. At that stage, Respondent No.3 issued a technical approval incorporating Condition No.6, whereby the petitioner was called upon to relinquish, free of cost, a portion of the property abutting the existing National Highway for the purpose of road widening. 5. Aggrieved by the imposition of the said condition, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.11.2024, enclosing all relevant documents, seeking rectification of the development plan by deletion of Condition No.6. Since no action was taken - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4394 WP No. 3086 of 2025 on the said representation, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 6. Smt.Raagini Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that: 6.1. The total extent of land held by her measures 2 acres and 5 guntas (8,602 square metres), of which 4,725.96 square metres is proposed to be utilised for commercial purposes, 862 square metres for a park, and 434.21 square metres for vehicular parking. The remaining extent of 2,579.83 square metres, which has been earmarked in the technical approval for handing over to the authorities, is stated to be impermissible in law, inasmuch as no acquisition proceedings have been initiated in respect of the said land, nor is any internal road proposed or formed within the single plot development. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4394 WP No. 3086 of 2025 6.2. It is further submitted that what is proposed within the layout is only a park, and not a road. The petitioner asserts that she is otherwise entitled to utilise the existing road abutting the property for ingress and egress, without being compelled to relinquish any portion of her land. 6.3. On these grounds, it is contended that the demand made by the Respondent in the technical approval/report is arbitrary and without authority of law, and is therefore liable to be quashed. 6.4. In that regard, she relies upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Buntara Yaane Naadavara Sangha Byndoor vs. State of Karnataka and others1 more particularly para 8 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 8. Admittedly, in the instant case, the respondents have not acquired the property of the petitioner and are insisting the petitioner to relinquish their rights in the portion of the property that belongs to 1 WP No.18362/2023 dated 2.8.2024 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4394 WP No. 3086 of 2025 the petitioner. The respondents have no right to impose such a condition while granting a sufficient plan. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in identical matters, quashed the impugned conditions. I concur with the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforementioned writ petitions. 6.5. She relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dr.Arun Kumar B.C., vs. State of Karnataka and others2 more particularly Para 26 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 26. In view of preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that the impugned endorseinents issued by the Respondent BBMP requiring the petitioners to relinquish the properties in question free of cost as a condition precedent for processing their applications for sanctioning of building plans is without authority of law and the same violate Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, I pass the following: 6.6. She relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sri.Vinod Damji Patel vs. the Hoskote Yojana Pradhikara and another3 more particularly paras 7, 8, 9 and 10 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 2 WP No.9408/2020 and connected matters dated 17.1.2022 3 WP No.15103/2022 dated 17.4.2023 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4394 WP No. 3086 of 2025 7. A perusal of Section 17(2-B) indicates that it is when a plan sanction is granted and road ear- marked in such a plan sanction, the said road would have to be surrendered free of cost. If civic amenities are ear-marked the said civic amenities would have to be surrendered free of cost. The essential ingredient being that the said road and civic amenities are required to be part of the plan sanctioned by the planning authority and the extent of road and civic amenities are calculated in terms of the zonal regulations applicable thereto. 8. In the present case, what is sought for by respondent No.1 is surrender of land of the petitioner for the proposed widening of the National Highway to 45 meters. In that view of the matter the demand made by respondent No.1 to say the least would be a claim made by the respondent No.1 in extortion by using their power to sanction a plan. 9. If respondent No.1 intends to form any road on land belonging to a private citizen, it would be required for such authority to acquire the land and make payment of due compensation to such private citizen. Merely because of land being designated for widening of an existing road or designated for a formation of a road, there cannot be demand by a planning authority like respondent No.1 to surrender the said land free of cost by the owner. 10. The interpretation now sought to be given to Section 17(2-B) KCTP Act is completely misplaced in as much as the said provision only relates to roads formed within the layout and the civic amenities formed within the layout to be sanctioned. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4394 WP No. 3086 of 2025 6.7. On that basis, she submits that the writ petition is required to be allowed, granting the aforesaid reliefs. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that, 7.1. in terms of sub-section (2A) of Section 17, whenever the competent authority proceeds to sanction a layout plan, the landowner is statutorily required to relinquish road portions and access paths to the local authority, and civic amenity areas to the Planning Authority, free of cost. 7.2. It is contended that, in the present case, the portion of land marked in the technical approval for the purpose of widening of the existing 18-metre National Highway squarely falls within the said statutory mandate and is therefore required to be relinquished without compensation. 7.3. Learned AGA would further submit that, in any event, the land so earmarked is not capable of being put to any developmental use by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4394 WP No. 3086 of 2025 petitioner, and consequently, the requirement to hand over the said land free of cost cannot be faulted. 8. Heard Smt.Raagini Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Boppanna Belliyappa, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri.Ashok N.Naik, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 and perused papers. 9. The foundational facts are undisputed. The ownership of the petitioner over the subject property is not in controversy. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner approached the competent authority only for sanction of a Single Plot Development Plan, and not for approval of a layout plan. The distinction between the two is material. A layout plan necessarily contemplates formation of internal roads and civic amenity areas, whereas a Single Plot Development, by its very nature, does not envisage internal roads. What is required to be provided for in such a case is reservation of open spaces and parks, which, as noticed earlier, has been duly complied with and demarcated in the sanctioned plan. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4394 WP No. 3086 of 2025 10. The petitioner’s land admittedly has direct frontage and access to the existing 18-metre-wide ring road. In such circumstances, no further internal road is either required or contemplated. Despite the same, the respondents, proceeding on the footing that a 33-metre road margin is required to be maintained abutting the existing road, have demarcated a portion of the petitioner’s land and have called upon her to surrender / relinquish the same free of cost. 11. Merely because a portion of land falls within a road margin, or is proposed to be utilised for future widening of the existing National Highway, the same does not, by itself, clothe the respondents with authority to demand relinquishment free of cost. If the land falls within a road margin, the legal consequence is only that construction is impermissible on that extent. Such restriction, however, does not divest the petitioner of ownership, nor does it disentitle her to utilise the corresponding FAR over the balance land. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4394 WP No. 3086 of 2025 12. If, on the other hand, the said land is required for the purpose of widening of the existing road, the only legally permissible course open to the respondents is to initiate acquisition proceedings in accordance with law. Compelling the landowner to part with the land by way of a relinquishment deed, without payment of compensation, is wholly impermissible. 13. The submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate based on sub-section (2A) of Section 17 also cannot be accepted. The said provision operates in the context of roads formed in a layout approved by the Planning Authority. The statutory obligation to relinquish roads and civic amenity areas free of cost arises only when such roads are formed as part of a sanctioned layout. 14. In the present case, the approval granted in favour of the petitioner is only for a Single Plot Development. No road is formed or proposed within the petitioner’s property. Though a path/access is shown in the sanctioned plan, the same, as rightly conceded, would have to be - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4394 WP No. 3086 of 2025 relinquished to the local authority in accordance with law. Beyond this limited extent, there is no statutory basis to invoke Section 17(2A) for compelling the petitioner to relinquish any further portion of her land. 15. Accordingly, the demand made by the respondents, premised either on Section 17(2A) or on the concept of road margin / proposed widening, is without authority of law and cannot be sustained. 16. In that view of the matter, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) A certiorari is issued. Condition No.6 to the technical approval dated 13.8.2018 and consequently the letter dated 17.12.2024 bearing No.NaGraYoSaNi:ChiMa/32/2018-19 issued by respondent no.3 at Annexures-A and B are quashed. iii) Respondent no.3 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.11.2024 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4394 WP No. 3086 of 2025 at Annexure-C in terms of the observation made hereinabove and grant the sanction of the single plot development plan within 30 days of the receipt of a copy of this order. A condition could, however, be imposed that there would be no construction in the road margin. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31