<p>The BBMP’s circular asking landowners to surrender their properties for road-widening for free while the application for building plan sanction is pending violates Article 300A of the Constitution, the High Court has said.</p>.<p>Quashing the February 29, 2016, circulars and endorsements issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) of five property owners, the court cited the Supreme Court order in the KT Plantation case to say that the owner of an immovable property cannot be deprived of his ownership by mere executive order without specific legal authority or competent legislation.</p>.<p>One of the petitioners had filed an application with the BBMP seeking building plan sanction to construct a hospital. The BBMP issued an endorsement stating that the application will be processed only upon the petitioner surrendering the property earmarked for the purpose of widening the road in the master plan free of cost.</p>.<p>Other petitioners also challenged the circulars on the requirement of surrendering of the land.</p>.<p>Justice Hemant Chandanagoudar noted that the definition of Development Plan and Regulations 7.1 (5) and 7.2 (d) indicate that it is a condition precedent to incorporate the road shown in the Master Plan-2015 in the plan and shall be handed over free of cost to the BBMP.</p>.<p>However, these regulations are applicable only to the development of lands, the extent of which is more than 20,000 sq meters (around five acres) with respect to residential plan and the extent of which is more than 12,000 sq meters (around three acres) in respect of a non-residential plan.</p>.<p>In the cases on hand, the extent of land sought to be developed for residential/commercial purposes is far less than the extent of land specified in the definition of the development plan, the court noted.</p>.<p>“Even otherwise, the impugned endorsements and circulars issued by the BBMP is arbitrary and discriminatory since the owners of the properties earmarked as ‘Road’ in the Master Plan-2015 and who have not applied for sanctioning of building plan for developing their properties will be entitled to compensation under Section 71 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, if the said properties are acquired for implementing the Master Plan.</p>.<p>“The petitioners cannot be deprived of their properties earmarked as roads in the revised Master Plan-2015 merely because they intend to develop their properties by obtaining a sanctioned building plan,” the court said.</p>.<p><strong>Check out DH's latest videos:</strong></p>
<p>The BBMP’s circular asking landowners to surrender their properties for road-widening for free while the application for building plan sanction is pending violates Article 300A of the Constitution, the High Court has said.</p>.<p>Quashing the February 29, 2016, circulars and endorsements issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) of five property owners, the court cited the Supreme Court order in the KT Plantation case to say that the owner of an immovable property cannot be deprived of his ownership by mere executive order without specific legal authority or competent legislation.</p>.<p>One of the petitioners had filed an application with the BBMP seeking building plan sanction to construct a hospital. The BBMP issued an endorsement stating that the application will be processed only upon the petitioner surrendering the property earmarked for the purpose of widening the road in the master plan free of cost.</p>.<p>Other petitioners also challenged the circulars on the requirement of surrendering of the land.</p>.<p>Justice Hemant Chandanagoudar noted that the definition of Development Plan and Regulations 7.1 (5) and 7.2 (d) indicate that it is a condition precedent to incorporate the road shown in the Master Plan-2015 in the plan and shall be handed over free of cost to the BBMP.</p>.<p>However, these regulations are applicable only to the development of lands, the extent of which is more than 20,000 sq meters (around five acres) with respect to residential plan and the extent of which is more than 12,000 sq meters (around three acres) in respect of a non-residential plan.</p>.<p>In the cases on hand, the extent of land sought to be developed for residential/commercial purposes is far less than the extent of land specified in the definition of the development plan, the court noted.</p>.<p>“Even otherwise, the impugned endorsements and circulars issued by the BBMP is arbitrary and discriminatory since the owners of the properties earmarked as ‘Road’ in the Master Plan-2015 and who have not applied for sanctioning of building plan for developing their properties will be entitled to compensation under Section 71 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, if the said properties are acquired for implementing the Master Plan.</p>.<p>“The petitioners cannot be deprived of their properties earmarked as roads in the revised Master Plan-2015 merely because they intend to develop their properties by obtaining a sanctioned building plan,” the court said.</p>.<p><strong>Check out DH's latest videos:</strong></p>