SMT.RENUKA v. COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI.A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R.4) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE IMPUGNED CONDITION NO.22 CONTAINED IN THE TECHNICAL APPROVAL DATED 02-04-2025 IN NO.NAGRAYOSANIHA/ALURU/ VINYASA/403/2024-25 DATED AT ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN SO FAR AS PRODUCED 02-04-2025 THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, AS BEING WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW, IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER In the captioned writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the imposition of condition No.22 contained - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26540 WP No. 20022 of 2025 HC-KAR in the Technical Approval dated 02.04.2025 granted by the Authority – respondent No.3 vide Annexure-D.

#2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds has brought to the notice of this Court that the issue is substantially addressed and decided in numerous judgments rendered by this Court. The judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which is evidenced at Annexures-F to H.

#3. The short point that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether respondent No.3 while issuing Technical Approval could have imposed a condition No.22 calling upon the petitioner to execute a relinquishment deed in favour of respondent No.4 without seeking any compensation and free of cost.

#4. This issue has been squarely addressed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment cited supra. In a factually similar context, the Co-ordinate Bench held that in the absence of any statutory backing or - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26540 WP No. 20022 of 2025 HC-KAR lawful authority conferred by a competent legislative enactment as mandated under Article 300A of Constitution of India a person cannot be divested of their lawful ownership or rights over immovable property merely by administrative or executive action, such as the imposition of a condition in a technical approval. The Court, in that case, underscored that the right to property is a constitutional right and that deprivation of such right must be strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law.

#5. To fortify its reasoning, the Co-ordinate Bench relied upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.T. PLANTATION PRIVATE LIMITED V. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the contours of Article 300A and reiterated that any interference with the right to property must be supported by a valid law and cannot rest solely on executive or administrative instructions. 1 AIR 2011 SC 3430 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26540 WP No. 20022 of 2025 HC-KAR

#6. Applying the said principles, the Co-ordinate Bench held that merely because a property is shown as earmarked for road widening or other public purposes in the Revised Master Plan, 2015, the same cannot, by itself, be a ground to curtail ownership rights. The planning authorities, while exercising powers under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, are not vested with jurisdiction to impose conditions that virtually amount to compulsory acquisition or restriction on ownership, especially in the absence of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act or any other enabling statute.

#7. This Court further notes that the imposition of similar conditions in technical approvals particularly with regard to surrendering portions of land due to earmarking under the Master Plan has been consistently deprecated and set aside by this Court in several decisions, which were also brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26540 WP No. 20022 of 2025 HC-KAR

#8. In view of the settled legal position and the fact that Condition No.22 of the Technical Approval runs contrary to the mandate of Article 300A and Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, this Court finds that the said condition cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, Condition No.22 of the Technical Approval is liable to be quashed,

#9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The condition No.22 of the Technical Approval dated 02.04.2025 passed by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-D is hereby declared as one without authority and accordingly, stands quashed insofar as petitioner is concerned. (iii) Consequently, condition No.22 contained in the letter of Technical Report dated

02.04.2025 passed by respondent No.3 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26540 WP No. 20022 of 2025 HC-KAR as per Annexure-D is hereby quashed and consequently, the endorsement dated 16.04.2025 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-E is also quashed. (iv) Respondent No.4 is hereby directed to issue E-katha subject to compliance of other conditions. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22