Bengaluru Development Authority v. Dr. G V Palaksha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 984 OF 2026 (BDA) BETWEEN:

¶1BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THROUGH ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶2EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - EAST DIVISION, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HSR BDA COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 102. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. AJAY KUMAR M., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1DR. G.V. PALAKSHA, S/O LATE G .T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1141, 21ST CROSS, SECTOR-03, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶2MR. G.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O LATE G.T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY,

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO. 335, 9TH MAIN, 4TH PHASE, DOLLARS COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶3STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NIRTHYA KALIGOTLA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2, SRI. B.RAVINDRANATHA, AGA FOR R3)

THIS WRIT IS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:11.02.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.20701/2025 AND ETC.,

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the writ Court in WP.No.20701/2025 filed by the respondents.

¶2The petitioners are the owners of land measuring 19 acres 15.5 guntas, for which they have entered into a joint development agreement with a developer for forming sites.

¶3The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court.

¶4The petitioners have applied for sanctioning the plans. The petitioners were required to relinquish an extent of 531.487 square meters of their land for construction of Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) road. The petitioners have executed the relinquishment deed dated 04.06.2014, relinquishing to an extent of

531.487 square meters of their land in favour of the planning authority for construction of CDP road. The land earmarked for CDP road can be acquired under Section 169 of the Karnataka Town Planning Act, 1964. The provisions of Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town Planning ACT, provides that no persons shall be eligible for development rights over the surrendered area earmarked for road, path or normal road to the planning authority or local authority, while appearing for formation of layouts or development of any land under Sections 15 and 17. However, this provision does not provide that, for formation of the common Comprehensive Development Planning road, the land owner shall not be entitled for the compensation or Transferable Development Rights (TDR).

¶5This Court in the judgment dated 29.04.2026 passed in WA.No.522/2025 has taken note of the rules and regulations of Revised Master Plan-2015. Regulations

7.1.3 of the Zoning Regulations provides for granting additional FAR in respect of the relinquished land for

construction of the CDP Road. Even as per the relinquishment deed, 531.487 square meters of land has been demarcated for construction of CDP Road. The planning authority has refused to sanction TDR or the compensation for 531.487 square meters for which the petitioners have filed the writ petition and the writ Court vide the impugned order has held that the denial of TDR is unsustainable and therefore, allowed the writ petition.

¶6The direction to the Planning Authority to transmit the development rights of the TDR to the petitioners proportionate to the land which they have relinquished i.e., 531.487 square meters has been correctly passed.

¶7We find no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the relinquished land i.e., 531.487 square meters is part of the approved plan. Even the relinquishment deed states that 531.487 square meters is relinquished for the TDR road. If a road is

constructed outside the plan for public use by the Planning Authority, it cannot be said that it is part of the approved plan. A CDP road is different than the internal roads within the layout.

We therefore, find no substance in this appeal. There is no scope to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. We dismiss this appeal, however without costs.

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 ct-vn