(Prayer: This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, praying to allow the Writ appeal and set aside the order dated 14.02.2024 In writ petition No.677/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition No.677/2022.)

Cav Judgment:

T.M. Nadaf, J.

1. The Tumkur Urban Development Authority – respondent No.4 in W.P.No.677/2022 is in appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 14.02.2024.

2. Under the impugned order, the Writ Court allowed the Writ Petition directing respondents 4 and 5 to pass necessary award and compensate the petitioner or owner of the property, which is the subject matter of the Writ Petition, which is used/ intended to be used for formation of the road.

3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court.

4. The brief factual matrix leading to filing of this appeal are as under:

               The petitioner approached the Writ Court contending that he is the owner of 29 Guntas of land in Sy.No.196/1 (new Survey Nos.196/11 and 196/3), Amanikere village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, Tumkur District. He has submitted an application for sanction of plan for construction of residential house (single plot) on the said property. The fourth respondent vide order dated 08.08.2012 sanctioned the plan, however with a rider that the authorities were intending to widen the road which was in front of the property of the petitioner, a condition had been imposed on the petitioner that he should put up a compound after 75 feet from the centre of the road and thereafter to put up construction in accordance with law.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the sanctioned plan, a portion of his property has been earmarked for formation of road for which he would not be paid any compensation. He submits that he being the owner of the land, having the constitutional right under Article 300A, be compensated for use by the authority by adopting due process of law i.e., by means of acquiring the land and paying compensation. In that regard, he has submitted his representation, an Endorsement dated 20.09.2019 has been issued by respondent No.3 stating that his representation was forwarded to the Government for necessary instructions, however no instructions have been received, in that view of the matter his request has been kept in abeyance. As there has been no further communication, the petitioner has approached the Writ Court.

6. Before the Writ Court, the petitioner submitted that he had no objection for acquiring the portion of the land after paying the compensation for formation of the road. His relief was restricted with limited prayer for a direction to the authorities to grant compensation in respect of the land to be utilized for the intended road to be formed.

7. Refuting the said contentions, learned counsel for respondent No.4, taking shelter under Section 32(5) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act'), submits that the petitioner is not entitled for compensation for the land over which the road is being formed. Respondent No.4 would further contend that any person who intends to form a layout is liable to surrender certain extent of land to the authorities concerned for formation of road, civic amenities, parks and the like and for that reason, he is not entitled for any compensation. The plan for residential house is sanctioned subject to condition that he has to construct compound wall leaving 75 feet from the centre of the road.

8. The Writ Court having considered the rival submissions was of the opinion that there is no condition except stating that compound wall to be constructed 75 feet away from the middle of the road and no condition regarding relinquishment of the property of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, taking note of Section 32(5) placing reliance on the Judgment in MR.M.RAJU VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS reported in (2023 0 SUPREME (KAR) 224) on Section 32(5) of the Act, allowed the Writ Petition directing respondents 4 and 5 as stated supra. It is this order passed by the Writ Court is called in question in this appeal.

9. Heard, Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 - appellant herein, Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.Mohan.S, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

10. Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, with all vehemence submits that in an identical matter, the co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.A.No.1679/2024 in case of NELAMANGALA PLANNING AUTHORITY VS. SMT.GAYATRI LAKSHMIPATHI decided on 27.01.2026, wherein after considering Section 17(2A) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, in Paragraph 9 to 11 held that the party who sought for any sanction of plan for the construction of building for industrial purpose requires to surrender land by means of relinquishment deed to the Planning Authority and which would not amount to compulsory acquisition of land, as held by the Writ court in that case and set-aside the order passed by the Writ Court. In the case on hand, due to inadvertence, the provision of Section 32(5) of the Act was raised before the Writ Court, the provision which ought to have been considered is Section 17(2A) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, which also applies to single plot development. The party who obtains sanction plan is required to leave a certain portion of the land in favour of the planning authority by means of relinquishment deed and sought to allow the appeal and set-aside the order of the learned Single Judge.

11. In contrast, Sri.Mohan, with all vehemence submits that the Judgment on which the reliance was placed by respondent No.4 – appellant is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the case on hand, the plan was sought for construction of residential building in the land whereas as per the facts of the case, in NELAMANGALA PLANNING AUTHORITY supra is for industrial purpose. In these circumstances, the provision is not applicable. The plan sought for construction of residential house as a single plot and the provision prescribes for formation of layout and not for single plot, accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal.

12. Having perused the entire materials, we are of the opinion that the Judgment cited by learned counsel for respondent No.4 is not applicable to facts of the case on hand. Accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, when we proceeded to dictate the judgment, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner invites our attention to page No.107 to contend that subsequent to the sanctioned plan for construction of residential house, the petitioner has obtained Trade License dated 24.10.2017 with respect to running of sawmill in the backyard of the house proposed to be constructed in the land to which the construction plan of residential house has been sanctioned.

13. Considering the submissions, we have gone through Page No.107 i.e., the copy of Trade License dated 24.10.2017 at Annexure-J which says that for the purpose of running a Sawmill, the license was issued. On the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, we found that the petitioner is trying to start an industry in the backyard of the house proposed to be constructed on the plan sanctioned for the purpose of construction of residential house which amounts to running an industry. Sawmill comes within the purview of an industry. The Sawmill facilitates foundational industrial facility where the logs are processed into lumber and wood products wherein high speed automated machinery such as saws, lasers, scanners and clips to convert timber into high value constructive material are used. It amounts to converting natural product into a timber which comes within the purview of industries. In that view of the matter, the Judgment relied on by respondent No.4 – appellant herein is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires some modification.

14. In the event the petitioner is to start his industry in the backyard, he has to execute relinquishment deed in terms of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as well as Master Plan 2031 (Revision- II) Final for Tumkur Local Planning Area Tumkur-2031 AD Report, 2010. However, in the event the petitioner wants to start the industry somewhere else other than the land in dispute, he has to file an undertaking to that effect before this Court as well as before the concerned authority. In that view of the matter, in the event if there is any widening of road, the authorities are bound by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, if the petitioner does not want to set up saw mill on the plot in question and files an undertaking to that effect.

15. With these observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of.

                   Pending interlocutory applications, if any, does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.