Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, private citizens owning land in Shivamogga, challenged a demand by urban authorities to surrender 109.80 square metres of their land free of cost for road widening as a condition for granting building permission and khatha. The site was originally purchased by their mother in 1957, partitioned in 1974, and bequeathed to them by will in 1991. When the petitioners sought amalgamation of their holdings and a building permit, the Shivamogga City Corporation and Urban Development Authority insisted on relinquishment of the land for widening an adjoining road from 24 to 30 metres. The petitioners, being deprived of the use of their property, executed the relinquishment deed under protest on 31 August 2019 and then immediately approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash the notice dated 28 August 2019 and the relinquishment deed. The petitioners contended that no statutory provision authorised such a demand and that it amounted to extortion. The respondents relied on Section 32(5) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 and Regulation 6.1(b) of the Zonal Land Use and Regulations, arguing that the law permitted requiring surrender of land without compensation for roads to be laid out by the applicant. The Court interpreted Section 32(5) strictly, holding that it applies only when a landowner submits a layout plan for approval and the roads, parks, and amenities are laid out by the applicant within that layout. The existing road in question was not laid out by the petitioners; it was a public road that the authorities themselves wished to widen. The Court held that the demand was without jurisdiction, as the authorities had no power to compel a private citizen to surrender land free of cost for an obligation that rested on the State. Without statutory backing, the condition for building licence and khatha was illegal and the relinquishment deed obtained by coercion was nonest. The Court also rejected the alternative remedy argument, relying on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1, which held that an order passed without jurisdiction cannot be an efficacious alternative remedy. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, both the notice and the relinquishment deed were quashed, and the respondents were directed to execute cancellation of the deed within four weeks. The Sub-Registrar was empowered to cancel the deed upon presentation of the order. The Court also directed the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department to issue necessary directions to prevent such practices by urban development authorities, but refrained from imposing exemplary costs.
Headnote
A) Urban Development - Land Surrender - Powers of Authority - Sections 32(5) Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 - Dispute pertained to notice demanding free surrender of land for road widening as condition for building permit - Court held that Section 32(5) applies only to roads laid out by applicant within a layout, not to existing public roads; demand was without jurisdiction and relinquishment deed obtained by coercion was nonest - Held that authorities cannot coerce private citizens to part with land without compensation (Paras 9-14, 16). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Article 226 Constitution of India - Respondents argued that appeal was available, but Court held that when order is without jurisdiction, alternative remedy is not a bar, following Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 - Held that writ petition was maintainable (Para 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondent authorities have power under Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 or zonal regulations to demand free surrender of land from petitioners for road widening; whether such demand is valid and the relinquishment deed can be quashed
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The notice dated 28.08.2019 and the relinquishment deed dated 31.08.2019 were quashed. The respondents were directed to execute cancellation of the relinquishment deed within four weeks, and the Registrar was to cancel it upon presentation of the order. The Court directed the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department to issue necessary directions to Urban Development Authorities not to indulge in such practices. No costs were imposed.
Law Points
- Section 32(5) of KUDA Act applies only to roads laid out by applicant in a layout
- not to existing roads outside
- No statutory power to demand free surrender of land for road widening
- Coercive conditions for building permit are without jurisdiction
- Relinquishment deed obtained by coercion is nonest
- Alternative remedy not efficacious for orders without jurisdiction
