High Court Rules BBMP Cannot Force Thalaghattapura Owner To Give Up Land For Free
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the civic body cannot force a landowner to surrender private property free of cost for road widening under the Master Plan. Justice Suraj Govindaraj delivered the ruling in a petition filed by Bengaluru resident M Shashikumar concerning his land situated at Thalaghattapura village along Kanakapura Road.
The court clarified that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), now the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA), is not empowered to compel landowners to give up their property without compensation.
According to the court case, Shashikumar had entered into a joint development agreement with a private developer for 2 acres and 4.5 guntas of land in Thalaghattapura village to construct apartments. He paid Rs 1.3 crore in fees and applied for a modified sanction plan.
While the modified plan was approved on April 26, 2024, the local authorities did not release it. Instead, they issued an endorsement on September 30, 2024, stating that the approved plan would only be released if the petitioner relinquished 371.8 square metres of his land free of cost to facilitate road widening.
After his repeated requests to the authorities failed to yield results, Shashikumar approached the High Court. He argued that prior court decisions established that private landowners cannot be forced to give up land to the state without proper legal authority.
In its defense, the BBMP argued that the proposed widening of the existing road from 31 metres to 45 metres would benefit the petitioner by providing improved access and better facilities to his property.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj rejected the civic body's argument, stating that any incidental benefit from a public infrastructure project does not extinguish constitutional protections over private property. The judge noted that while property value enhancement could be considered when determining compensation, it cannot justify denying compensation entirely.
The court ruled that if the authorities require the land for road widening in the public interest, they must use legally recognised statutory mechanisms. This includes paying due compensation or granting Transferable Development Rights (TDR) where permissible under planning regulations.
