High Court rules Bengaluru landowners cannot be forced to give up land for free

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that local authorities cannot force private property owners to surrender land for free for road widening projects. Justice Suraj Govindaraj delivered the ruling in a petition filed by Bengaluru resident M Shashikumar, who owned land at Thalaghattapura village along Kanakapura Road in Bengaluru.

Shashikumar had entered into a joint development agreement with a private developer to construct apartments on his property, which measures 2 acres and 4.5 guntas. To proceed with the project, he applied for a modified sanction plan and paid Rs 1.3 crore in fees.

Although the authorities approved the modified plan on April 26, 2024, they did not release it. Instead, on September 30, 2024, they issued an endorsement stating that the approved plan would only be released if Shashikumar relinquished 371.8 square metres (around 4,200 square feet) of his land free of cost for road widening.

After his repeated requests to release the plan yielded no results, Shashikumar approached the High Court. He argued that prior court decisions established that private landowners cannot be compelled to surrender land to the state or its agencies without proper legal authority.

The respondent, formerly the BBMP and now the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA), defended its action. The authority 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.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj rejected the authority's defence, stating that any incidental benefit from a public infrastructure project does not extinguish or dilute constitutional protection over private property.

The judge noted that while any enhancement in property value from road widening could be considered when determining compensation, it cannot justify withholding compensation entirely.

The court ruled that if the authorities require the petitioner's 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. The court concluded that free relinquishment without consideration is not a legally available option.