- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2055 WP No. 108919 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 108919 OF 2025 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN: 1. DR. RAJESHWAR S/O. RUDRAPPA HALLIKERI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. VINAYAK NAGAR, KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD-580001. 2. DR. SIDDAGANGA D/O. RENUKANTH SANGAVI, (NOW W/O. RAJESHWAR HALLIKERI), AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. VINAYAK NAGAR, KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD-580001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ K.MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DHARWAD, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD-580001, BY ITS COMMISSIONER. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.19 14:53:29 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2055 WP No. 108919 of 2025 3. THE HUBBALLI-DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NAVANAGAR, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580025, BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DHARWAD, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. CHETAN T.LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R4; SRI. GIRISH HULMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THAT PART OF THE ENDORSEMENT/ ORDER/COMMUNICATION BEARING APPLICATION NO. HDW-LBPAS-50405/25-26/BP AT VIDE ANNEXURE-D, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, WHICH INSISTS UPON THE PETITIONERS TO SURRENDER 3.00 METERS OF ROAD WIDENING LAND FREE OF COST THROUGH A RELINQUISHMENT DEED AS A PRE-CONDITION FOR THE SANCTION OF THE BUILDING PLAN; AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2055 WP No. 108919 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner has called in question the endorsement/order/communication bearing Application No.HDW-LBPAS-50405/25-26/BP issued by respondent No.2–Corporation (Annexure–D), whereby the petitioner has been called upon to surrender 3.00 meters of land earmarked for road widening, free of cost, by executing a relinquishment deed as a precondition for sanction of the building plan. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that imposition of such a condition is not justifiable and the said condition cannot be imposed without initiating the acquisition proceedings. In terms of the endorsement, the application submitted by the petitioner seeking permission for building was rejected on the premise that the application will be considered after the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2055 WP No. 108919 of 2025 petitioner surrenders certain extent of land on free of cost in favour of the respondent-Corporation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri B.K.Thyagaraj and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others1 (B.K.Thyagaraj) and Sri D. Sundara Rami Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and Others2 (Sundara Rami Reddy) and further submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.Vijayalakshmi and Others Vs. Town Planning Member and Another3, (T.Vijayalakshmi) wherein it is held that the authorities cannot insists upon the surrender of land free of cost as a condition precedent for the grant of building permission, unless acquisition proceedings 1 W.P.No.17302/2023 2 W.P.No.4217/2025 3 (2006) 8 SCC 502 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2055 WP No. 108919 of 2025 are initiated in accordance with law. He further submits that, considering the aforesaid decisions another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Maruti Kalal Vs. The State of Karnataka and others4 (Santosh Maruti Kalal) and in the case of Sri Prasanna and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka and others5 (Prasanna), have quashed similar endorsements issued by the same Corporation. Relying on the said decisions, it is contended that, unless compensation is paid, the State cannot compel surrender or relinquishment of land. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents seeks to justify the impugned endorsement and contends that, as per the Zonal Regulations, 2019 read with the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, any land required under a Master Plan or Town Planning 4 W.P.No.105273/2025 5 W.P.No.109014/2025 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2055 WP No. 108919 of 2025 Scheme is deemed to be acquired for a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the condition imposed is justified in the larger public interest. 6. The issue involved is no longer a res integra. The Apex Court in the case of T.Vijayalaxmi categorically held that the land owners cannot compel the land free of cost for public purposes. Following the said judgment, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of B.K.Thyagaraj, Sundara Rami Reddy, Santosh Maruti Kalal and Prasanna have quashed similar endorsements issued by the Municipal Authorities. 7. Even assuming that the land is required for public purpose under the Master plan, the authority must initiate acquisition proceedings in accordance with law. Compelling surrender without compensation amounts to indirect acquisition without following due process. Therefore, the impugned endorsement insisting upon - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2055 WP No. 108919 of 2025 execution of a relinquishment deed at free of cost cannot be sustained. For the foregoing reasons, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The endorsement/order/communication bearing Application No.HDW-LBPAS-50405/ 25-26/BP issued by respondent No.2 – Corporation (Annexure–D), is hereby quashed. iii. Respondent-corporation is directed to consider the petitioner’s application for building permission strictly in accordance with law, without insisting upon surrender of land free of cost and issue building permission subject to the petitioner fulfilling other requirements under law, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA gab Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15