Planning Authority Forcing Private Landowner To Surrender Property For Proposed Acquisition Free Of Cost Amounts To Extortion: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an endorsement issued by the Planning Authority of Hoskote Taluk in rural Bangalore, directing a private landowner to surrender a portion of his land free of cost, claiming it has been earmarked for widening of National Highway, and only then it would approve the construction plan submitted on the remaining land.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by one Vinod Damji Patel and directed the authority to consider and approve the plan submitted by the petitioner without insisting for such surrender free of cost. It remarked,

“In the present case, what is sought for by respondent No.1 is surrender of land of the petitioner for the proposed widening of the National Highway to 45 meters. In that view of the matter the demand made by respondent No.1 to say the least would be a claim made by respondent No.1 in extortion by using their power to sanction a plan.”

Patel is the absolute owner of 8 ½ guntas of subject non-agricultural land, and had submitted a plan for approval to Hoskote Planning Authority (respondent No.1). However, the authority responded contending that 80% of the said land had been earmarked for widening of National Highway-35 to 45 meters and called upon the petitioner to hand over the land so ear-marked free of cost and it is only thereafter the authority would approve the plan.

The authority relied on Section 17(2-A) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 to contend that while sanctioning the layout plan, the planning authority can impose a condition for relinquishing the roads, parks, playground to the local authority and the Civic amenities areas to the planning authority under a registered relinquishment deed and as such the demand made by it to surrender the area earmarked for the proposed 45 meter road is proper and correct and the same has to be surrendered free of cost.

The High Court said a perusal of Section 17(2-B) indicates that it is when a plan sanction is granted and road ear-marked in such a plan sanction, the said road would have to be surrendered free of cost.

It added,

“The essential ingredient being that the said road and civic amenities are required to be part of the plan sanctioned by the planning authority and the extent of road and civic-amenities are calculated in terms of the zonal regulations applicable thereto. If respondent No.1 intends to form any road on land belonging to a private citizen, it would be required for such authority to acquire the land and make payment of due compensation to such private citizen.”

It held merely because of land being designated for widening of an existing road or designated for a formation of a road, there cannot be a demand by a planning authority like respondent No.1 to surrender the said land free of cost by the owner.

Observing that the interpretation now sought to be given to Section 17(2-B) KCTP Act is completely misplaced, the bench concluded by saying “Admittedly, the proposed widening of the 45 meters of road has nothing to do with a layout but something which has been planned by the authorities concerned keeping in view the requirement of widening the existing National Highway and the same has been approved by the State Government by approving the master plans. The said contention as already observed being a claim by the respondent No.1-Authority amounting to extortion cannot be sustained.”

However, the bench granted liberty to the authority to acquire the land by making payment of due amounts as per applicable law.

Case Title: Vinod Damji Patel And The Hoskote Yojana Pradhikara & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.15103 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 176

Date of Order: 17-04-2023

Appearance: Advocate H R Anantha Krishna Murthy for Petitioner.

Advocate Gangadharappa A V for R1.

Click Here To Read/Download Order