The Karnataka High Court criticized the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for failing to provide Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates that were promised when the land was purchased for public usage.
Given the human ideals on which the Indian Constitution was established, a single bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit held that the State and its authorities should take a humanitarian approach to the challenges of individuals in need of socioeconomic help.
“A bare perusal of the impugned order gives an impression that it is texted with the mindset of a Draftsman of East India Company of the bygone era and not by the one whose heart is at the right place,” the bench stated.
The petitioners’ (Jayamma & Ors) lands were taken for the purpose of road expansion in Marenahalli.
They gave up their lands after being promised the issuing of TDR certificates in return for them, and they did so in accordance with the regulations.
On March 17, 2022, the BDA issued an order that refused the certifications. The petitioners approach the court as a result of this.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate DL Jagadeesh contended that the order of the BDA was contrary to Section 14B of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act.
He said that the petitioners had been awarded individual Hakku Patras (claim letters), and that the denial of the TDR certificate was untenable because the patras were relinquished without compensation.
Furthermore, he maintained that the State could not have offered the petitioners a bad bargain and that its conduct fell well short of the fairness requirements required of it.
Appearing for the respondents, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and BDA, Advocate Chaithravati and Advocate BS Sachin contended that the award of TDR is controlled by a legislative programme and that there can be no claim for TDR certificates unless the terms of the plan are fully followed.
The petitioners sought dismissal of the writ petition, claiming that they were not the owners of the land.
The bench noted that the State government had authorised BDA to issue the hakku patras and, therefore, held that the BDAs submissions were unsustainable.
It said that the right to property is still constitutionally protected by Article 300A, and that this guarantee is not limited to the right of ownership but extends to a far broader set of rights in which interest in property other than ownership still has a place.
The single bench held that the BDA had not justified its denial of the petitioner’s TDR certificate, and that denial of TDR would imply that the petitioners were not entitled to compensation even if they had paid the land title deed.
It stated that it would be unscientific if the government acquired private property for development projects without following the procedures and denied TDR.
As a result, the bench granted the petitions and invalidated the BDA’s order of March 17, 2022, which rejected the BBMP’s proposal to award the petitioners TDR certificates.
It instructed the BDA to give TDR certifications to the petitioners and to submit a report to the Registrar General on the petitioners’ compliance with the High Court judgement within three months.
