Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, owner of 8½ guntas of converted non-agricultural land in Dandupalya Village, Hosakote Taluk, purchased under a sale deed in 2013, submitted a building plan for approval to Respondent No.1, the Hoskote Yojana Pradhikara. The respondent issued an endorsement dated 27.01.2022, stating that 80% of the land was earmarked for widening of National Highway-35 to 45 meters and required the petitioner to surrender that portion free of cost as a condition for plan approval. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking certiorari to quash the endorsement and a direction to approve the plan without such condition. The petitioner contended that the condition was illegal and beyond the authority’s powers, while Respondent No.1 relied on Section 17(2-A) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (KTCP Act), asserting that the planning authority could impose conditions for relinquishment of roads, parks, and civic amenities. The Court examined Section 17(2-B) of the KTCP Act and held that its plain language limits its application to roads and civic amenities formed within the layout plan that is being sanctioned. It does not extend to external projects like the widening of a National Highway. The Court observed that the demand for free surrender of land for a public project amounted to extortion, as the authority was using its power to grant plan approval as leverage. The Court emphasized that if land is required for road widening, the authority must acquire it by following due process and paying compensation. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. The endorsement dated 27.01.2022 was quashed, Respondent No.1 was directed to consider and approve the plan without insisting on such surrender, and liberty was reserved to the authority to acquire the land by paying compensation under applicable law.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Compulsory Land Surrender - Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, Section 17(2-B) - Planning authority imposed condition of surrendering 80% of petitioner's land free of cost for proposed widening of National Highway-35 as prerequisite for plan approval - The Court interpreted Section 17(2-B) as restricted to roads and civic amenities formed within the layout plan sanctioned; it does not apply to external road widening projects - Held that the demand is extortionate and impermissible; the authority must acquire land by paying compensation; endorsement quashed and plan approval directed without condition, with liberty to acquire land by due payment (Paras 6-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the planning authority can insist on the condition of surrendering land free of cost for the proposed widening of National Highway as a prerequisite for sanctioning a building plan
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The endorsement dated 27.01.2022 bearing No.HoYoPra/L.A.O/32/2021-22 is quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider and approve the plan submitted by the petitioner without insisting on surrender of land free of cost. Liberty is reserved to Respondent No.1 to acquire the land by paying due compensation as per applicable law.
Law Points
- planning authority cannot impose condition of surrendering private land free of cost for external public road projects
- Section 17(2-B) of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act
- 1961 applies only to roads formed within the layout plan
- compulsory acquisition with payment of compensation is required for highway widening
