M/S ELLIS FASHION EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs M/S THE BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
®
CNR: KAHC010097032025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 5093 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
M/S ELLIS FASHION EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
RD
AT NO.29, WHITE HOUSE, 3 FLOOR,
ST. MARKS ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI. JITENDRA D MAJETHIA.
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. M/S THE BANGALORE METRO RAIL
CORPORATION LIMITED
REGISTERED OFFICE AT BMTC COMPLEX,
RD
3 FLOOR, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL)/R5/P3
BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT BMTC COMPLEX,
RD
3 FLOOR, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
3. GENERAL MANAGER, (LA AND A),
BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT BMTC COMPLEX,
RD
3 FLOOR, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
BENGALURU - 560 027.
…. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH NARASIMHA MURTHY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT , ORDER OR
DIRECTION, DECLARING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE WAY LEAVE
POLICY OF THE RESPONDENTS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS
ANNEXURE-C BEARING NO. BMRCL/LAQ/WLP/5132/2022-23
INCLUDING ITS UNILATERAL TERMINATION CLAUSE ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, INVALID AND UNENFORCEABLE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.08.2026, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. A writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring
that the provisions of the Way Leave Policy of
the Respondents produced and marked as
Annexure-C bearing No.
BMRCL/LAQ/WLP/5132/2022-23 including its
unilateral termination clause are
unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable.
b. A writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order, or direction to the
Respondents to provide, forthwith and on a
permanent basis, an unrestricted 6 meter
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
wide entry and a 6 meter wide exit to the
Schedule Property from the northern side,
free of cost, along with the necessary rights
for the Petitioner to install and maintain
essential utility connections (water, electricity,
and sewage) on the relevant acquired land in
favour of the Petitioner.
c. A writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order, or direction to the
Respondents to make good the loss as
demanded under the legal notice of the
Petitioner as per Annexure F dated
07/10/2024 and continue to pay such
damages till such time the Respondents allow
the Petitioner from getting accesses to
schedule property as prayed for.
d. Pass such other order/s including the award
of costs, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under
the facts and circumstances of the case, in
the interest of justice and equity.
2. The Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the
property bearing Bangalore Mahanagar Palike
Municipal No. 28/B, PID No. 57-137-28B, situated at
Sarakki Industrial Layout, Bannerghatta Road, 3rd
Phase, J. P. Nagar, Bengaluru, measuring 766.26
square metres. The property comprises a commercial
building with a super built-up area of 21,839 square
feet, consisting of the ground, first, second, third and
fourth floors. According to the Petitioner, the
property originally had an independent and wide
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
entry and exit on its eastern side, directly facing the
main road.
3. On 07.03.2017, Respondent No. 1, Bangalore Metro
Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL), issued a letter
informing the Petitioner that an extent of 152 square
metres on the eastern side of the property would be
acquired through the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board (KIADB) for the construction of a
metro station. The date 07.03.2017 is treated in this
order as the date of acquisition of the said extent.
Pursuant to the acquisition, a portion of the existing
building was demolished and the metro station was
constructed. The Petitioner contends that, in the
course of these works, the entire access from the
property to the main road was taken over, thereby
leaving the remaining property without access.
4. The Petitioner states that the property had been
leased to M/s. GraphX Solution India Private Limited
under a registered lease deed dated 01.07.2015.
According to the Petitioner, the tenant was paying
monthly rent of Rs.12,01,145/-, subject to an
escalation of 15% upon completion of every third
year. The Petitioner further contends that, following
the proposed demolition of a portion of the building
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
and the consequent disconnection of the water,
electricity and sewerage connections, the tenant
vacated the premises in August 2019, and the
demolition was carried out thereafter. Consequently,
the property has remained vacant since August
2019, resulting in a continuing loss of rental income.
5. The Petitioner also raises a dispute concerning the
compensation paid for the acquired extent of 152
square metres. It is contended that compensation
was paid only for 95.75 square metres, while
compensation for the remaining 56.25 square metres
was declined on the ground that the land constituted
kharab land. The Petitioner challenged that decision
in W.P. No. 4125/2023, in which this Court directed
KIADB to take steps to issue the necessary
corrections to a corrigendum so as to include the
remaining extent of 56.25 square metres and make
payment of compensation.
6. On 15.04.2024, the Petitioner addressed a letter to
BMRCL seeking access to the remaining property
from the northern side through land acquired by
BMRCL. The Petitioner sought a separate ingress and
a separate egress, each measuring six metres in
width, contending that such access was necessary
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
having regard to the size and commercial use of the
building and the number of persons using it.
7. By its reply dated 28.06.2024, Respondent No. 2, the
Additional Chief Engineer of BMRCL, informed the
Petitioner that a combined access measuring six
metres in width could be provided, subject to
payment of the prescribed way-leave charges in
advance and execution of a way-leave agreement for
a period of ten years. The Petitioner did not accept
the proposal.
8. The Petitioner thereafter issued legal notices dated
05.10.2024 and 07.10.2024. In the notice dated
05.10.2024, the Petitioner contended that BMRCL
had left the property without access to the main road
and had unauthorisedly disconnected the water,
electricity and sewerage connections during
construction of the metro station. The Petitioner
further asserted that these acts had caused the
tenant to vacate the premises and had resulted in
financial loss. The Petitioner called upon BMRCL to
provide a six-metre-wide entry and a six-metre-wide
exit on the north-western side of the property, while
reserving the right to claim damages.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
9. By the subsequent legal notice dated 07.10.2024,
the Petitioner quantified the loss of rental income
and related amounts at Rs.11,30,36,834.57 as on
the date of the notice. The Petitioner relied upon the
rent payable under the registered lease deed, the
stipulated escalation and the period during which the
property remained vacant. A statement setting out
the calculation of the rental loss and interest,
together with a copy of the lease deed, was enclosed
with the notice. The Petitioner called upon BMRCL to
pay the amount claimed.
10. On 19.11.2024, BMRCL informed the Petitioner that a
six-metre-wide entry and exit could be provided for a
period of ten years and called upon the Petitioner to
confirm in writing its acceptance of the applicable
charges. By a reply dated 27.11.2024, the Petitioner
disputed the demand for payment for the entire six-
metre width, relying upon Clause 4 of BMRCL's way-
leave policy, under which, according to the
Petitioner, access up to 3.5 metres was to be
provided free of cost. The Petitioner contended that
BMRCL could not demand charges for access
necessitated by its own acts in blocking the existing
ingress and egress. The Petitioner further maintained
that, having regard to the size and commercial use of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
the property, permanent and unrestricted access was
required and reiterated the request for a six-metre-
wide entry and exit from the northern side.
11. BMRCL responded on 23.12.2024, stating that the
compensation already paid included compensation
for the demolished building and that no further
compensation was payable. It further stated that,
following the demolition, the Petitioner had been
permitted, upon request, to strengthen the floors
extending from the line of acquisition towards the
line of cut, at the Petitioner's own expense and
without entitlement to compensation for such works.
12. BMRCL, while admitting that it demolished a portion
of the building after taking possession of the
acquired land, denied that it had disconnected the
water, electricity and sewerage connections in the
manner alleged by the Petitioner. It stated that the
water and sewerage pipes situated within the
acquired portion had been closed to facilitate
construction of the metro station, as the property
was lying vacant. According to BMRCL, there was
consequently no need to restore those connections to
the remaining property. It also disputed the
Petitioner's claim that the tenant had vacated the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
premises or had been paying monthly rent of
Rs.12,01,145/- with an escalation of 15% every
three years. BMRCL contended that, if the Petitioner
intended to lease the property, separate water and
sewerage connections could have been obtained and
that it could not be held responsible for the alleged
loss of rental income.
13. With regard to access, BMRCL relied upon Clause 4 of
its way-leave policy, stating that free access up to
3.5 metres could be permitted over BMRCL's
property. It maintained that the policy did not extend
to providing water, sewerage or electricity
connections across its property and that the
Petitioner's demand for a six-metre-wide entry and
exit was not permissible under the policy. BMRCL
further contended that any right granted to the
Petitioner to use its property for ingress and egress
would be in the nature of a licence, subject to the
applicable terms and conditions. It denied liability for
the compensation and damages claimed by the
Petitioner.
14. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has
approached this Court seeking the reliefs set out in
the petition.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
15. Sri.S.Rajendra, learned counsel for the Petitioner
would submit that:
15.1. The Petitioner owns the property bearing
Bangalore Mahanagar Palike Municipal No.
28/B, PID No. 57-137-28B, situated at Sarakki
Industrial Layout, Bannerghatta Road, 3rd
Phase, J. P. Nagar, Bengaluru, measuring
766.26 square metres. The property comprises
a commercial building with a super built-up
area of 21,839 square feet, consisting of the
ground, first, second, third and fourth floors.
Before the acquisition, the property had a wide,
independent access on its eastern side, directly
facing the main road, with the entire frontage
available for ingress and egress.
15.2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that,
by communication dated 07.03.2017, BMRCL
informed the Petitioner that 152 square metres
on the eastern side would be acquired through
KIADB for construction of a Metro station.
Following the acquisition, the road-facing
portion of the building was demolished and the
Metro station was constructed. The Petitioner’s
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
case is that the acquisition and construction
blocked the entire former frontage and access
to the main road, leaving the remaining
property without ingress or egress. The
Petitioner further submits that access cannot be
obtained through the Metro station.
15.3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the effect of an acquisition must not be
assessed solely by reference to the area
acquired. The effect on the remaining property
is also relevant, particularly where the use of
the acquired land affects the access, usability
and commercial utility of the residual property.
Payment of compensation for the acquired land
and demolished structure does not, by itself,
determine the separate question whether the
remaining property has been left with
reasonable and usable access.
15.4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the former frontage was not voluntarily
surrendered and that the Petitioner did not
independently seek permission to use BMRCL’s
land for an additional benefit. The land was
compulsorily acquired by the State in exercise
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
of its power of eminent domain. The need for
alternative access arose, according to the
Petitioner, because the Metro project removed
the access previously available. The Petitioner
therefore submits that its request should not be
treated as an ordinary request for an additional
facility or commercial advantage.
15.5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the public purpose of the Metro project is not
disputed. The issue is whether that purpose can
be achieved while also addressing the
foreseeable effect of the project on the
remaining property. The Petitioner does not
seek to obstruct the project; it seeks an
effective means of continuing to use the
property left after acquisition.
15.6. Referring to the photographs produced before
this Court, Learned Counsel submits that the
Metro station abuts the Petitioner’s property
and that the station wall blocks the eastern side
that formerly provided direct access to the main
road. The Petitioner relies on the photographs
and site layout to contend that neither the
former access nor an alternative access is
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
available, his submission is that there is at
present no Access to the property of the
Petitioner.
15.7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that,
by letter dated 15.04.2024, the Petitioner
requested access from the northern side
through land acquired by BMRCL. The request
was for separate ingress and egress passages,
each six metres wide, having regard to the size
of the property, the commercial building and
the movement of persons and vehicles
associated with its use.
15.8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that,
by communication dated 28.06.2024, BMRCL
offered a single combined passage measuring
six metres in width, subject to advance
payment of way-leave charges and execution of
an agreement for ten years. The Petitioner did
not accept the offer. BMRCL reiterated its
position by communication dated 19.11.2024
and called upon the Petitioner to confirm
acceptance of the applicable charges. The
Petitioner submits that a single six-metre
passage is not equivalent to two separate
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
passages, each six metres wide, because the
arrangements differ in width, configuration and
the manner in which vehicles would enter and
leave the property.
15.9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
access must be assessed in the context of the
building’s size and commercial use. The building
has a super built-up area of 21,839 square feet
and was leased to M/s. GraphX Solution India
Private Limited under a registered lease deed
dated 01.07.2015. The Petitioner submits that
the building was being used commercially and
generating rental income before the access and
utility disputes arose. The requirements of such
a building include access for employees,
customers, visitors, service providers, delivery
vehicles and the movement of goods, furniture,
equipment and materials required for
maintenance and repairs. Pedestrian access, or
a passage suitable only for limited vehicle
movement, would not necessarily provide
effective access for the building’s intended use.
15.10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further
submits that parking facilities have been made
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
available for persons using the building. Those
facilities cannot serve their intended purpose if
vehicles cannot reach the property through a
suitable passage. The width and configuration
of access should therefore bear a reasonable
relationship to the property’s dimensions,
location, commercial use and site conditions.
The Petitioner submits that its request for
separate six-metre-wide ingress and egress
should be considered on its merits and not
rejected merely by reference to standard
categories in the way-leave policy.
15.11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the adequacy of access also raises fire-safety
and emergency-response concerns. Fire tenders
and other emergency vehicles may need to
approach the building. Suitability depends not
only on the stated width of a passage but also
on its turning radius, clear height, alignment,
obstructions and the ability of emergency
vehicles to reach the relevant part of the
premises. The Petitioner relies on the
approximate dimensions of passenger vehicles
and larger vehicles, including buses, minibuses,
goods trucks and fire tenders, to contend that a
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
passage of limited width may not meet all the
requirements of the property. Learned Counsel
submits that these matters require technical
assessment and cannot be resolved merely by
referring to the minimum free-access width
under the way-leave policy.
15.12. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
BMRCL’s policy regulates the use of its land, but
does not, by itself, establish that every width
permitted under the policy is suitable for every
building. The technical adequacy of access and
the financial terms on which it is provided are
separate questions. The Petitioner’s case is that
separate six-metre-wide ingress and egress are
required for the effective use of the remaining
property and should be assessed in light of the
relevant site and safety requirements.
15.13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on
Clause 4 of BMRCL’s way-leave policy, which,
according to the Petitioner, provides for free
access up to 3.5 metres for eligible properties.
Learned Counsel submits that the policy must
be read as a whole and applied to the
circumstances of this case. The provision for
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
free access shows that the policy recognises the
need to provide access to affected properties in
at least some circumstances. BMRCL should
therefore consider whether the provision
applies and whether the Petitioner’s
circumstances justify a different or case-specific
arrangement before demanding charges.
15.14. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
reliance on the 3.5-metre provision does not
amount to acceptance of access limited to that
width or of BMRCL’s offer of a combined six-
metre passage. The Petitioner maintains that
the required access must be determined by
reference to actual site conditions, the
building’s commercial use and applicable safety
requirements. A standard width may be
adequate for some residential properties but,
according to the Petitioner, may not be
adequate for this substantial commercial
building. Even if the policy prescribes a
standard free width, the Court should consider
whether that width is sufficient in this case and
whether the policy permits a reasoned, case-
specific arrangement.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
15.15. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further
submits that the policy provides for wider
passages in the ranges of 3.5 to 7 metres, 7 to
12 metres and 12 to 20 metres, with charges
calculated at different percentages of the
applicable guidance value. The Petitioner
submits that these provisions recognise that
access requirements vary, but that charging a
landowner whose former access was removed
through compulsory acquisition is arbitrary and
causes prejudice. The Petitioner’s case is that
BMRCL must first determine the access
reasonably required and provide effective
alternative access without charge, because the
need for that access arose from the project.
The existence of charging slabs does not
remove the need to assess the suitability of the
proposed arrangement or the reasonableness of
the charges and conditions.
15.16. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
BMRCL requires advance payment of way-leave
charges and an agreement for ten years.
According to the Petitioner, the charges are
calculated by reference to the guidance value
notified by the State Government, with the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
applicable percentage depending on the width
of the passage, and renewal charges are based
on the guidance value prevailing at the time of
renewal. The Petitioner contends that this
would impose a substantial financial burden on
an owner who needs access only because the
original access was lost through a public
project. Learned Counsel submits that BMRCL
should not, in effect, charge rent for restoring
access that the Petitioner previously enjoyed
without charge, or use the acquisition-created
need to derive a commercial benefit from the
affected owner.
15.17. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
there is a material distinction between a person
who voluntarily seeks to use BMRCL’s land for
an additional benefit and an owner whose
former access has been lost as a consequence
of a public project. The Petitioner contends that
ordinary licence charges may be relevant to the
former situation but should not automatically
apply where acquisition and construction have
left the remaining property without access. The
Petitioner further submits that BMRCL should
not be permitted to take advantage of a
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
situation caused by its own acquisition and
construction activities.
15.18. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the former access to the Schedule Property was
available without payment of way-leave
charges. Had the road-facing portion not been
acquired, the Petitioner would, according to its
case, have continued to enjoy that access. The
Petitioner submits that compensation paid for
the acquired land and demolished building does
not include separately assessed compensation
for the loss of access to the remaining property.
It contends that the Respondents cannot treat
alternative access as a new, chargeable
privilege while leaving the loss of the former
access unaddressed. The Petitioner submits
that, at the least, any compensation properly
payable for the loss of access should be
considered when determining the cost of
providing access on a continuing basis. The
Petitioner characterises the proposed advance
charges as expropriatory in their effect.
15.19. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on
Clause 3 of the way-leave policy, which is said
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
to reserve to BMRCL the right to enter upon,
pass through or use its land and to discontinue
the way-leave facility without notice. The clause
is also stated to exclude liability for
compensation or reimbursement and to impose
no obligation to provide alternative access
following discontinuance. Learned Counsel
submits that these terms do not provide
adequate security or continuity for an owner
who requires dependable access for the use of
the property and for any tenant occupying the
building.
15.20. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the risk of discontinuance is particularly serious
where the Petitioner is required to make
substantial advance payment for a ten-year
period. The payment obligation and BMRCL’s
asserted power to discontinue access without
notice or an alternative arrangement should be
considered together. The Petitioner contends
that this would place the owner in an unequal
position and could leave the property without
access even after payment. The Petitioner
therefore challenges the policy insofar as it
permits access to be made subject to conditions
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
without adequate safeguards against leaving an
affected property inaccessible.
15.21. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the way-leave policy, as applied to this case, is
arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the
Constitution. The challenge is not merely to the
use of standard categories or charges. It is that
the policy and its application fail to account for
relevant differences between properties and
between the circumstances in which access is
sought. A property with access from another
road is not in the same position as a property
whose only access has been blocked by a public
project. Likewise, the needs of a small
residential property may differ from those of a
substantial commercial building. The location,
dimensions, frontage, intended use, number of
occupants, vehicle movements, safety
requirements and availability of alternative
access are all relevant considerations.
15.22. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
a uniform policy may provide an administrative
framework, but its application must comply
with constitutional requirements. If the policy
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
does not permit meaningful consideration of an
affected property’s circumstances, or if BMRCL
refuses to consider relevant factors when
deciding the Petitioner’s request, the resulting
decision may be arbitrary even if the policy
serves a legitimate administrative purpose in
general. The Petitioner contends that BMRCL
has not adequately explained why the
requested arrangement is unsuitable, why a
combined six-metre passage would be
sufficient, or why the policy must be applied
without modification in the circumstances of
this case.
15.23. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
BMRCL has treated the way-leave policy as
inflexible and has declined to consider the
particular consequences of its acquisition and
construction activities. The Petitioner
accordingly challenges the policy at Annexure-C
as unconstitutional, ultra vires, invalid and
unenforceable to the extent that it fails to
provide for fair, case-specific consideration of
the circumstances pleaded, permits access to
be denied or discontinued without adequate
safeguards, and allows a time-bound,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
chargeable arrangement to be imposed without
adequately addressing the loss of the access
previously enjoyed. The Petitioner seeks a
declaration to that effect and a consequential
writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to
provide the access claimed in the writ petition.
15.24. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the loss of access has affected the Petitioner’s
ability to use the property for commercial
purposes. According to the Petitioner, the
tenant, M/s. GraphX Solution India Private
Limited, vacated the premises in August 2019
following the proposed demolition and
interruption of utility services, and the building
has remained vacant since then. The absence
of effective access has impaired occupation,
delivery of goods, maintenance, emergency
response and the ability to lease the premises.
Learned Counsel submits that the practical
effect of the denial of access must be assessed
in the context of the building’s established
commercial use.
15.25. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the Petitioner does not contend that Article
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
19(1)(g) guarantees every property owner the
precise width of access preferred by that
owner. The submission is that the State and its
instrumentalities must consider the effect of
their actions on the ability to use property for
lawful commercial purposes. Where a public
project removes the former access, the
authority must consider whether the alternative
arrangement is reasonable and effective. The
Petitioner contends that the failure to do so in
the present case infringes Article 19(1)(g).
Learned Counsel further submits that the public
purpose of the Metro project does not answer
the separate question whether the remaining
property can still be used lawfully and
effectively for commercial purposes.
15.26. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relies on
Article 300A of the Constitution. The Petitioner
acknowledges that the acquisition was
undertaken for a public purpose, but submits
that the Court should consider the substance
and effect of the action, rather than only the
formal extent of the land acquired. According to
the Petitioner, the use made of the acquired
land has deprived the remaining property of the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
access required for its effective enjoyment. The
consequences for the residual property must
therefore be considered separately from
compensation for the land and structure
actually acquired.
15.27. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the Petitioner does not seek to treat every
inconvenience caused by a public project as a
constitutional violation. Its case is that the loss
is substantial: the former access has been
blocked, the alternative access remains
disputed, and the proposed arrangement is
subject to charges and conditions that,
according to the Petitioner, do not secure
dependable access. The Petitioner submits that
compensation for the acquired land cannot
automatically extinguish every separate claim
arising from the effect of the acquisition on the
remaining property. The access dispute must be
determined on its own facts and under the
applicable law.
15.28. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further relies
on Article 21 in relation to the safety of persons
who may occupy or use the commercial
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
building. The Petitioner submits that the access
arrangement should not be treated solely as a
dispute about licence charges. Its adequacy
also affects emergency response and the safety
of persons within the premises. In particular,
the Petitioner submits that the requested
permanent and unrestricted access under
prayer (b) a six-metre ingress and a separate
six-metre egress from the northern side, is
relevant to fire safety and emergency response
and thus to the life and liberty of persons using
the building of the Petitioner.
15.29. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the Respondents’ offer of a single passage, of
which 3.5 metres is free and anything above
that width is chargeable, would not provide
adequate access for fire tenders and other
emergency vehicles. An emergency at the
Schedule Property could also pose a risk to the
adjoining Metro station, its operations,
commuters and members of the public. The
Petitioner submits that access must therefore
be assessed by reference to the actual
emergency-access requirements of the building
and the potential consequences for the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
adjoining Metro infrastructure, rather than
solely by reference to a nominal width
prescribed by policy. These considerations are
relied upon in support of the specific mandamus
sought under prayer (b).
15.30. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the claim for damages under prayer (c) has two
components: (i) past losses quantified in
Annexure-F dated 07.10.2024; and (ii)
continuing damages arising from the ongoing
deprivation of effective access. The past claim
relates to the period up to the date of the legal
notice and is based on rental income said to
have been lost after the tenant vacated the
building. The Petitioner submits that the
proposed subsequent reconnection of water,
electricity and sewerage facilities does not
extinguish the accrued claim, because proposed
restoration of those utilities neither reverses
past rental loss nor remedies the continuing
access problem.
15.31. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
continuing damages are claimed for the period
after 07.10.2024, for so long as the Schedule
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
Property remains incapable of effective
commercial use and occupation because
adequate ingress and egress have not been
provided. The Petitioner seeks damages until
the permanent and unrestricted access claimed
under prayer (b) is provided. The claim for past
damages and the claim for continuing damages
thus relate to distinct periods. The Petitioner
submits that both are covered by prayer (c),
subject to adjudication on the pleadings and
material on record.
15.32. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the property was leased to M/s. GraphX
Solution India Private Limited under a
registered lease deed dated 01.07.2015, at a
monthly rent of Rs.12,01,145/-, with an
escalation of 15% upon completion of every
third year. The Petitioner contends that the
tenant vacated in August 2019 after the
demolition and disconnection of utility services,
and that the premises have remained vacant
since then. By legal notice dated 07.10.2024,
the Petitioner quantified rental loss and related
amounts at Rs.11,30,36,834.57 and enclosed a
statement calculating the claimed loss and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
interest by reference to the lease deed. Learned
Counsel submits that the claim is based on
identifiable contractual and financial records
and should be assessed in light of those
records.
15.33. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that,
by communication dated 23.12.2024, BMRCL
stated that the compensation paid included
compensation for the demolished building and
that no further compensation was payable.
BMRCL also stated that the Petitioner had been
permitted, at its own expense, to strengthen
the floors from the line of acquisition towards
the line of cut, without entitlement to
compensation for those works. The Petitioner
submits that these statements do not resolve
the separate issues concerning loss of access to
the remaining property, interruption of utilities,
the adequacy of the proposed alternative
passage, or the terms governing its continued
use.
15.34. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the
separate dispute concerning compensation for
the 152 square metres acquired. The Petitioner
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
submits that compensation was paid for only
95.75 square metres and that compensation for
the remaining 56.25 square metres was refused
on the ground that the land was classified as
kharab land. The Petitioner challenged that
refusal in W.P. No. 4125/2023. In that
proceeding, this Court directed KIADB to take
steps to issue a corrigendum containing the
necessary corrections, including the remaining
extent of 56.25 square metres, and to make
payment of compensation. Learned Counsel
submits that this dispute is distinct from the
access grievance and that the circumstances
demonstrate the need to consider the
Petitioner’s claims fairly.
15.35. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the compensation dispute and the access
dispute must be kept distinct. The former
concerns payment for the land acquired; the
latter concerns the loss of access to the
remaining property and the conditions on which
alternative access is offered. Resolution of the
compensation dispute would not, by itself,
resolve the access issue. Conversely, the
access claim should not replace consideration of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
whether the directions concerning the
remaining 56.25 square metres have been
complied with.
15.36. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
prayer (b) seeks substantive and prospective
relief by way of a mandamus directing the
Respondents to provide permanent and
unrestricted access to the remaining Schedule
Property, comprising a six-metre ingress and a
separate six-metre egress from the northern
side, together with the necessary rights to
install and maintain water, electricity and
sewerage facilities. The Petitioner submits that
this relief is intended to secure access and
enable the property’s use and occupation.
Compensation for the acquired land and
demolished structure does not, by itself, satisfy
this separate claim.
15.37. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
prayer (c) seeks monetary relief for the losses
quantified in Annexure-F dated 07.10.2024 and
continuing damages until the access sought
under prayer (b) is provided. The claim
concerns loss of rental income and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
consequential losses said to arise from the
continued deprivation of access to the
remaining property. The Petitioner submits that
it is not a claim for duplicate compensation for
the acquired land or demolished structure. An
order providing access may remove the
continuing impediment to use of the property,
but would not, by itself, determine or
extinguish losses accrued before access is
provided. The Petitioner accordingly seeks
separate consideration of the monetary relief
under prayer (c), in addition to the access relief
under prayer (b).
15.38. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the central issue is not merely the amount of
way-leave charges. It is whether the remaining
property was left without access as a result of
the public project and whether BMRCL’s
proposed solution is adequate, lawful and
reasonable. The Petitioner seeks an
arrangement that accounts for the physical
configuration of the site, the building’s
commercial use, the movement of vehicles and
goods, applicable safety requirements and the
need for continuity of access. The Petitioner
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
maintains its request for separate six-metre-
wide ingress and six-metre-wide egress.
15.39. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the Petitioner is also willing, if effective and
dependable access cannot reasonably be
provided, for BMRCL to acquire the remaining
portion of the property upon payment of
appropriate compensation. This is advanced as
an alternative and not as an admission that
acquisition of the remaining property is
necessary. The primary relief remains the
provision of effective access on lawful and
reasonable terms. The alternative is put
forward because the Petitioner does not wish to
remain indefinitely dependent on a licence that
may be discontinued under the terms of the
policy.
15.40. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner accordingly
submits that the Respondents should be
directed to provide permanent and unrestricted
access to the Schedule Property in the manner
sought under prayer (b), including a six-metre
ingress and a separate six-metre egress from
the northern side, together with the necessary
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
utility rights. The Petitioner also seeks
adjudication of its claim for past and continuing
damages under prayer (c), and a declaration
that Annexure-C, the way-leave policy, is
unconstitutional, invalid and unenforceable to
the extent pleaded, or, alternatively, a direction
requiring BMRCL to apply the policy fairly and
give a reasoned decision after considering the
particular circumstances of the case. If effective
access cannot reasonably be provided, the
Petitioner seeks consideration of acquisition of
the remaining property in accordance with law.
16. Sri.Harish Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel for
BMRCL, would submit that:
16.1. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that BMRCL is a joint venture company in which
the State Government and the Central
Government each hold 50% of the
shareholding. It was established to implement
the Bangalore Metro Rail project, a major urban
infrastructure project providing rapid mass
transit for the benefit of the citizens of
Bengaluru.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
16.2. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that BMRCL formulated the Way Leave Policy
after due consideration to provide access where
acquisition for the Metro project leaves a
property without access. The policy recognises
a right of necessity by providing free access up
to 3.5 metres, while requiring payment for any
additional width. The Respondents submit that
the policy establishes a fair and transparent
mechanism that balances access to affected
properties with public interest and the
operational requirements of the Metro project.
16.3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that the writ petition is not maintainable and
that the Petitioner is estopped from challenging
the Way Leave Policy. The Petitioner’s letter
dated 31.07.2024 is said to record willingness
to pay the applicable way-leave licence charges
for access beyond the free entitlement of 3.5
metres. The Respondents contend that, having
expressed such willingness, the Petitioner
cannot approbate and reprobate by
subsequently challenging the policy.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
16.4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that the Petitioner has no vested right to
demand free access of 12 metres. BMRCL is
prepared to provide 3.5 metres of access free
of charge under the policy and to consider an
additional five metres, subject to compliance
with the policy and payment of the prescribed
licence fee. The Respondents submit that no
access beyond the additional five metres can be
considered and that the Petitioner is bound by
the policy. According to the Respondents, the
Petitioner cannot challenge the policy merely on
the basis of its own assertions, particularly
when the different rates for different widths of
access were prescribed after due consideration
by BMRCL, which has the relevant technical
expertise and personnel.
16.5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that the Petitioner’s claim for damages and
further compensation raises disputed questions
of fact that cannot appropriately be determined
in proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The Respondents contend that the
Petitioner should approach the competent Civil
Court to seek damages, compensation or a
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
declaration of easementary rights, where
evidence can be led. Learned Counsel submits
that such claims cannot be adjudicated merely
by filing a writ petition.
16.6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that the acquisition was carried out under the
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act,
1966 (“ KIAD Act ”). A sum of Rs.4,01,44,404/-
was paid to the Petitioner as compensation for
the acquired land and building. According to the
Respondents, the Petitioner accepted that
compensation in respect of the acquisition and
cannot claim further compensation on account
of the same acquisition. Learned Counsel
further submits that the compensation was
calculated at 200% of the market value,
together with solatium and interest, in
accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
16.7. On this basis, the Respondents contend that
BMRCL is entitled to levy licence charges for
access beyond the free 3.5-metre entitlement
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
and that such charges are neither unreasonable
nor arbitrary.
16.8. Learned Counsel for the Respondents admits
that 152 square metres of the Petitioner’s
property was acquired. The boundaries of the
acquired land were recorded as follows: East—
road; West—remaining portion of Property No.
28/B; North—property of Prema Raghu N. V.;
and South—property of Madhusudhan P. Patel.
Learned Counsel submits that the acquired land
lies on the eastern side and now forms part of
BMRCL’s property.
16.9. It is also admitted that BMRCL demolished a
portion of the building after taking possession
from the Special Land Acquisition Officer
(“ SLAO ”), and that compensation was paid for
the demolished portion.
16.10. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that the land over which access is sought
belongs to BMRCL and is required for its Metro
infrastructure. The Petitioner has no
independent right to use that land apart from
the benefit available under the Way Leave
Policy. According to the Respondents, the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 40 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
access permitted under the policy is not a
vested right and remains subject to BMRCL’s
discretion. This, he submits, is why the policy
reserves the right to cancel the permission to
use BMRCL’s land. Learned Counsel
nevertheless submits that, if the Petitioner pays
the prescribed licence fee, BMRCL would not
cancel the licence and would enter into renewal
agreements from time to time, so long as the
applicable fee continues to be paid.
16.11. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that the Petitioner’s request for water,
electricity and sewerage connections through
BMRCL’s land from the northern side is not
covered by the Way Leave Policy. BMRCL
therefore denies that it is obliged under the
policy to provide those connections. However,
he submits that in response to the Petitioner’s
representation, a joint inspection was
conducted on 28.03.2025 in the presence of the
Tahsildar, BMRCL’s Assistant Engineer and
Legal Advisor.
16.12. During the inspection, locations for laying the
electricity, sewage and water lines were
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 41 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
marked, as shown in Annexure-R2 to the
objections. Learned Counsel submits that
BMRCL is willing to permit the water line,
sanitary line and electricity line to be laid at the
marked locations.
16.13. Learned Counsel for the Respondents further
submits that BMRCL is willing to provide an
additional five metres of access, over and
above the free 3.5-metre passage, subject to
compliance with the Way Leave Policy and
payment of the prescribed amounts. The
Respondents maintain that BMRCL is not
obliged to provide the 12 metres of access
sought by the Petitioner and that any additional
access beyond the free entitlement is
conditional on payment under the policy.
16.14. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that BMRCL is not aware of the terms of the
alleged lease of the property to M/s. GraphX
Solution India Private Limited or the rent
payable under it. In any event, the
Respondents contend that the lease, the
amount of rent and the tenant’s decision to
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 42 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
vacate are matters between the Petitioner and
the tenant and do not concern BMRCL.
16.15. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that, if this Court were to hold the Way Leave
Policy invalid, the Petitioner could not rely on
that policy to claim even the free 3.5-metre
passage. The Respondents contend that the
Petitioner would then have to approach the
competent Civil Court and establish an
easementary right, including any claim based
on easement of necessity. Such a claim, they
submit, requires evidence and cannot be
determined in the present writ proceedings.
16.16. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that the land on the northern side of the
Petitioner’s property is also required for
BMRCL’s infrastructure project. The acquired
property was required for construction of the
Jayadeva Hospital Metro Station on
Bannerghatta Road, which serves thousands of
Metro users in the area. The Respondents
maintain that the acquisition and construction
of the station were lawful and proper and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 43 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
cannot be challenged in the present
proceedings.
16.17. Learned Counsel for the Respondents
accordingly submits that the applicable licence
charges are authorised by the Way Leave Policy
and are not arbitrary. BMRCL is willing to
provide free access up to 3.5 metres, consider
an additional five metres subject to payment
and compliance with the policy, and permit the
laying of water, electricity and sewerage lines
at the locations marked during the joint
inspection. The Respondents contend that the
claims for damages, further compensation and
easementary rights involve disputed questions
of fact that should be pursued before the
competent Civil Court. On these grounds,
Learned Counsel prays that the writ petition be
dismissed.
17. Heard Sri.S.Rajendra, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Sri.Harish Narasimha Murthy, learned
counsel for BMRCL, and perused papers.
18. The points that would arise for consideration are as
follows:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 44 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
(i) Whether the writ petition is maintainable
in its present form, having regard to the
Respondents’ objections concerning the
disputed questions of fact, the availability
of a civil remedy and the alleged estoppel
arising from the Petitioner’s
communication dated 31.07.2024?
(ii) Whether the Petitioner has established
grounds for declaring the impugned Way
Leave Policy bearing No.
BMRCL/LAQ/WLP/5132/2022-23,
including its unilateral termination clause,
unconstitutional, invalid and
unenforceable, as sought under prayer (a)
of the writ petition?
(iii) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a writ
of mandamus under prayer (b), directing
the Respondents to provide, permanently
and free of cost, an unrestricted six-
metre-wide ingress and a separate six-
metre-wide egress to the Schedule
Property from the northern side, together
with the necessary rights to install and
maintain water, electricity and sewerage
connections over the relevant acquired
land; and, in particular, whether the
Respondents can restrict such access to
the arrangement contemplated under the
impugned Way Leave Policy and subject
any additional access to licence charges
and time-bound conditions?
(iv) Whether the compensation paid in respect
of the acquired land and demolished
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 45 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
structure precludes the Petitioner from
pursuing its distinct claim for damages
arising from the alleged loss of access to
the remaining Schedule Property?
(v) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the
monetary relief sought under prayer (c),
namely, recovery of the amount of
₹11,30,36,834.57 claimed under
Annexure-F dated 07.10.2024 and
continuing damages until the access
sought under prayer (b) is provided; and
whether such relief can appropriately be
adjudicated in the present writ
proceedings, having regard to the
Respondents’ objections concerning
disputed facts, causation and the alleged
loss of rental income?
(vi) What order?
19. This Court answers the above points as follows:
20. Answer to Point No. (i): Whether the writ
petition is maintainable in its present form,
having regard to the Respondents’ objections
concerning the disputed questions of fact, the
availability of a civil remedy and the alleged
estoppel arising from the Petitioner’s
communication dated 31.07.2024?
20.1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri S.
Rajendra, submits that the Petitioner does not
challenge the acquisition of its land or the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 46 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
public purpose of the Metro project. The
grievance is that the acquisition and
construction of the Metro station have left the
remaining Schedule Property without access.
The challenge is directed against the conditions
imposed by BMRCL for providing access to the
property. The Petitioner seeks relief under
prayers (a) and (b) of the writ petition.
20.2. The Petitioner submits that its refusal to
execute the proposed way-leave agreement
does not amount to refusal to cooperate with
BMRCL. Its letter dated 31.07.2024 expressed
willingness to pay the applicable charges for
additional access but did not amount to
acceptance of the Policy or its conditions. The
Petitioner disputes the financial burden imposed
and the absence of any assurance that access
would continue. Reliance on Clause 4 of the
Way Leave Policy does not amount to
acceptance of access limited to 3.5 metres or of
BMRCL’s proposal for a combined six-metre
passage.
20.3. The Petitioner submits that the dispute is not
confined to way-leave charges. The principal
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 47 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
issue is whether BMRCL can leave the
remaining property without access as a
consequence of a public project and then insist
on access only on the terms of its Policy. The
Petitioner relies on Articles 14 and 300A of the
Constitution and also invokes Articles 19(1)(g)
and 21.
20.4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, Shri
Harish Narasimha Murthy, submits that BMRCL
is a joint venture of the State Government and
the Central Government, established to
implement the Bengaluru Metro Rail project,
which serves an important public purpose.
20.5. The Respondents raise three objections to
maintainability. First, the dispute involves
questions of fact, including the alleged loss of
rental income and the claim for damages, which
require determination by a civil court. Second,
the Petitioner has an alternative remedy before
the civil court by way of a suit for easement of
necessity. Third, the Petitioner’s letter dated
31.07.2024, expressing willingness to pay the
applicable way-leave charges, precludes it from
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 48 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
challenging the Policy under the principle of
approbation and reprobation.
20.6. The Respondents further submit that, if the
Policy is set aside, the Petitioner must establish
its right to an easement before the competent
civil court. They also rely on the court fee paid
in the writ petition and contend that the
acquisition and construction of the Metro
station were undertaken for a public purpose
and should not be questioned.
20.7. The Petitioner does not challenge the
acquisition or the construction of the Jayadeva
Hospital Metro Station. It accepts that the
project serves a public purpose. The validity of
the acquisition and construction is therefore not
in issue in this writ petition.
20.8. The writ petition seeks three distinct forms of
relief:
20.8.1. Prayer (a) challenges the validity of the
Way Leave Policy, including its unilateral
termination clause.
20.8.2. Prayer (b) seeks permanent and
unrestricted access to the Schedule
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 49 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
Property, comprising a six-metre ingress
and a separate six-metre egress from
the northern side, together with the
necessary rights relating to utility
connections.
20.8.3. Prayer (c) seeks the amount claimed in
the legal notice dated 07.10.2024 and
continuing damages until the access
sought under prayer (b) is provided.
20.9. The maintainability of the writ petition must be
examined separately in relation to each relief.
FIRST OBJECTION: DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF
FACT
20.10. Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the
High Court to issue writs for the enforcement of
fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
The existence of disputed questions of fact does
not, by itself, bar the exercise of writ
jurisdiction. The Court must examine the nature
of the dispute, the facts requiring determination
and the relief sought.
20.11. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of
Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] and Radha
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 50 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal
Pradesh [(2021) 6 SCC 771], the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that the availability of
an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to
the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Court must
determine whether the particular claim is
appropriate for consideration under Article 226.
20.12. BMRCL is a public-sector joint venture
established to implement the Metro project. The
impugned Policy governs the conditions on
which affected property owners may obtain
access over land under its control. The
challenge concerns the exercise of public power
and raises an issue under Article 14. The
objection to jurisdiction cannot be sustained
merely because the dispute concerns land or
access.
20.13. In relation to prayer (a), the principal issue is
the legal validity of the impugned provisions of
the Way Leave Policy. The Policy is a written
instrument issued by BMRCL. Its terms and
legal effect can be examined on the basis of the
record. The constitutional validity of the Policy
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 51 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
is a matter for the Constitutional Court and
cannot be determined by a civil court.
20.14. In relation to prayer (b), BMRCL admits that
152 square metres of land on the eastern side
were acquired, that the acquired portion is
under its control and that part of the building
was demolished following the acquisition.
BMRCL’s proposal to provide access from the
northern side also establishes that access over
land under its control forms part of the dispute.
These matters can be considered on the basis
of the pleadings, admissions, correspondence
and other documents on record.
20.15. These admissions do not, by themselves,
establish the precise access to which the
Petitioner is entitled. Whether the Petitioner is
entitled to a six-metre ingress and a separate
six-metre egress, whether those dimensions
are legally required and whether access must
be provided free of charge are matters to be
determined under the point concerning prayer
(b). For the present point, it is sufficient that
the claim for access can be examined in writ
proceedings.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 52 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
20.16. BMRCL disputes the lease in favour of M/s.
GraphX Solution India Private Limited, the rent
payable, the tenant’s departure and the alleged
loss of rental income. These matters principally
concern prayer (c). A dispute over the amount
or cause of the alleged loss does not prevent
the Court from examining the legal validity of
the Policy or the claim for access.
20.17. BMRCL has not identified any specific factual
dispute concerning prayers (a) and (b) that
necessarily requires oral evidence before those
claims can be considered. The objection based
on disputed questions of fact is therefore
rejected insofar as it concerns prayers (a) and
(b). The monetary claim under prayer (c) is
considered separately under Point No. (v).
SECOND OBJECTION: AVAILABILITY OF A CIVIL
REMEDY
20.18. The Respondents contend that the Petitioner
must institute a civil suit for an easement of
necessity. The availability of a civil remedy
does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226. The question is
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 53 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
whether the nature of the relief sought
warrants consideration in writ proceedings.
20.19. Prayer (a) challenges the validity of a Policy
issued by a public body on constitutional
grounds. A civil suit for an easement would not
resolve that challenge. The Petitioner’s
grievance concerns not merely the existence of
a right of passage but also the conditions
imposed by BMRCL for providing access under
its Policy. The constitutional challenge is
therefore appropriate for consideration by this
Court.
20.20. BMRCL itself relies on the Policy as the basis for
offering access over land under its control. It
also states that the Policy recognises access
where a property has been left without an
outlet. This establishes that the dispute
concerns, at least in part, the terms on which
BMRCL proposes to provide access under its
own Policy.
20.21. The correspondence shows that the parties
have not reached an agreement on those
terms. BMRCL offered a combined six-metre
passage subject to charges and a time-limited
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 54 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
agreement. The Petitioner sought separate
ingress and egress and disputed the proposed
conditions. BMRCL’s subsequent position
regarding free access and additional access on
payment is considered under the point dealing
with prayer (b).
20.22. The history of the dispute also does not warrant
rejection of the writ petition. BMRCL informed
the Petitioner in 2017 that land would be
acquired for the project. The demolition of part
of the building is admitted. The parties
exchanged correspondence concerning access
in 2024, followed by the present writ petition in
2025. This history does not require the
Petitioner to pursue a civil remedy before the
Court considers prayers (a) and (b).
20.23. The objection based on the court fee paid in the
writ petition is also untenable. The issue is
whether the reliefs sought are appropriate for
consideration under Article 226, not whether
the court fee is lower than that payable in a
civil suit.
20.24. The objection that the Petitioner must first
institute a civil suit for an easement of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 55 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
necessity is therefore rejected insofar as it
concerns prayers (a) and (b). This conclusion
does not determine the nature or extent of any
easementary right or the precise access
arrangement to which the Petitioner is entitled.
Those issues fall for consideration under the
point dealing with prayer (b).
THIRD OBJECTION: ESTOPPEL ARISING FROM THE
LETTER DATED 31.07.2024
20.25. The Respondents contend that the Petitioner
expressed willingness in its letter dated
31.07.2024 to pay the applicable charges for
access beyond 3.5 metres and cannot now
challenge the Policy.
20.26. A statement of willingness to pay for access on
proposed terms does not amount to acceptance
of the validity of every provision of the Policy.
The Petitioner challenges, among other
matters, the Policy’s termination clause and the
conditions imposed for access. The
Respondents have not established that the
Petitioner expressly accepted those provisions
or abandoned its right to challenge them.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 56 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
20.27. The principle against approbating and
reprobating prevents a party from accepting
and obtaining a benefit under a transaction
while challenging that same transaction to
secure an inconsistent advantage. Its
application requires acceptance of the
transaction and the benefit flowing from it. A
mere expression of willingness to proceed on
proposed terms does not satisfy that
requirement.
20.28. BMRCL’s own case is that access would be
provided only after the agreement was signed
and the required payment was made. It does
not contend that the Petitioner signed the
agreement, obtained access under it or
otherwise received any benefit under the Policy.
The Petitioner’s willingness to pay for additional
access therefore does not amount to
acceptance of the Policy as a whole.
20.29. The subsequent correspondence confirms that
no final agreement was reached. The Petitioner
sought access on 15.04.2024, did not accept
BMRCL’s proposal dated 28.06.2024 and
subsequently objected to the charges and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 57 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
conditions in its communication dated
27.11.2024. The correspondence does not
establish that the dispute was settled or that
the Petitioner unequivocally abandoned its
challenge.
20.30. The Respondents have also not established that
they changed their position to their detriment in
reliance on the letter dated 31.07.2024. Their
case is that access was not provided because
the Petitioner did not sign the agreement. This
does not establish estoppel against the
Petitioner.
20.31. The objection based on estoppel is therefore
rejected. The letter dated 31.07.2024 does not
preclude the Petitioner from challenging the
Policy.
20.32. The Respondents’ objections must be
considered separately in relation to the reliefs
sought. Prayer (a) raises a constitutional issue
concerning the validity of a Policy issued by a
public body. Prayer (b) concerns access to the
remaining property and can be considered on
the basis of the pleadings, admissions and
documents on record. The disputed claim for
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 58 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
damages under prayer (c) requires a separate
assessment of the facts and of whether
monetary relief can properly be granted in writ
proceedings.
20.33. This Court accordingly answers Point No. (i) by
rejecting the objection to maintainability insofar
as it concerns prayers (a) and (b). The
availability of a civil suit for an easement of
necessity does not require the Petitioner to
pursue that remedy before this Court considers
those prayers. The Respondents have also
failed to establish that the letter dated
31.07.2024 estops the Petitioner from
challenging the Policy.
20.34. The maintainability and merits of the monetary
claim under prayer (c) are left for separate
consideration under Point No. (v).
21. Answer to Point No. (ii): Whether the Petitioner
has established grounds for declaring the
impugned Way Leave Policy bearing No.
BMRCL/LAQ/WLP/5132/2022-23, including its
unilateral termination clause, unconstitutional,
invalid and unenforceable, as sought under
prayer (a) of the writ petition?
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 59 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
21.1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri S.
Rajendra, challenges the Way Leave Policy at
Annexure-C. He submits that the Policy
prescribes different charges for passages of
different widths—3.5 to 7 metres, 7 to 12
metres and 12 to 20 metres. This recognises
that access requirements vary. The Petitioner
submits that BMRCL must consider the actual
need for access and the circumstances that
created it, rather than apply the charging
schedule without adequate regard to the
individual case.
21.2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the Policy requires ten years’ charges to be paid
in advance and calculates renewal charges by
reference to the guidance value then prevailing.
These conditions impose a substantial burden
on an owner who requires access because the
original frontage was acquired for the Metro
project. The Petitioner distinguishes an
applicant seeking additional access for
convenience from an owner whose existing
access was lost through acquisition. The
Petitioner had direct access from the main road
before acquisition and submits that
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 60 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
compensation for the acquired land and
demolished portion of the building did not
separately compensate for the loss of access to
the remaining property.
21.3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner challenges
Clause 3, which permits BMRCL to discontinue
access without notice, compensation, refund or
an alternative route. The Petitioner submits
that these conditions make access uncertain
even after substantial advance payment. Where
BMRCL controls the only effective route, the
power to withdraw access should be subject to
safeguards, including notice, reasons and a
suitable alternative arrangement. The Petitioner
states that it declined to sign the proposed
agreement because of its terms, not because it
was unwilling to cooperate.
21.4. On Article 14, Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner submits that the Policy does not
adequately distinguish owners who have other
access from those whose only access was lost
through acquisition. Nor does it sufficiently
account for differences between properties,
including the needs of a substantial commercial
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 61 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
building. The challenge is not merely to
standard categories or charges, but to their
application without fair consideration of the
affected owner’s circumstances. Learned
Counsel also relies on Article 300A and submits
that the effect of the acquisition on the
remaining property must be considered, rather
than only the area acquired. Article 19(1)(g) is
relied on in relation to lawful commercial use,
but the Petitioner does not claim that it
guarantees the precise width of access sought.
Article 21 was referred to in connection with fire
safety.
21.5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, Shri
Harish Narasimha Murthy, submits that the
Policy was framed after due consideration to
provide access where acquisition for the Metro
project has left a property without an outlet. It
recognises a right of necessity by allowing a
passage up to 3.5 metres free of charge and
prescribing charges for additional width.
According to the Respondents, the Policy
provides a fair and transparent system that
balances property owners’ needs with public
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 62 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
interest and the operational requirements of
the Metro project.
21.6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that the Petitioner has no vested right to
demand 12 metres of free access and must
comply with the Policy if it seeks additional
access. The Respondents rely on the
compensation paid for the acquisition, said to
have been calculated at 200% of market value,
together with solatium and interest under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. They contend that
charging for additional access is not arbitrary.
The Respondents further submit that the land
belongs to BMRCL, access is permitted at its
discretion, and the termination provision
protects BMRCL’s control over its land. They
state that, if charges are paid, BMRCL will not
cancel the arrangement and will renew it from
time to time.
21.7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that the rates for different widths were fixed
after due consideration by a competent
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 63 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
authority with the technical expertise required
for the Metro project. The Respondents contend
that the Court should not interfere merely
because the Petitioner considers the charges
excessive. They also argue that, if the Policy is
invalidated, the Petitioner may lose even the
benefit of the free 3.5-metre passage and may
have to establish an easement before a civil
court. The alternative-remedy objection has
been considered under Point (i).
21.8. This point concerns prayer (a), which seeks a
declaration that the Way Leave Policy, including
its unilateral termination clause, is
unconstitutional, invalid and unenforceable. The
challenge must be decided on the grounds
pleaded and the terms of the Policy. The Court
does not sit in appeal over every policy choice
made by a public authority, nor is it required to
decide in the abstract whether a particular
percentage of guidance value is the correct
charge. The question is whether the challenged
provisions are fair and lawful when applied to
an owner whose access or frontage was lost
through BMRCL’s acquisition for the Metro
project.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 64 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
21.9. The Policy is dated 07.07.2022. BMRCL
acquired the relevant land on 07.03.2017, and
the Petitioner states that the tenant vacated in
August 2019 and that part of the building was
demolished thereafter. The Policy was issued
after the events giving rise to this dispute, but
BMRCL has applied it to the Petitioner and
relied on it in its correspondence and
submissions. Its validity must therefore be
considered on its merits.
21.10. On account of the very date of the Policy it
could be held that the Policy dated 07.07.2022
could not be made applicable by BMRCL to the
relevant land acquired on 07.03.2017.
However, since BMRCL has in fact made the
Policy applicable to the Petitioner and has relied
upon it in its correspondence and submissions,
this Court proceeds to decide the challenge to
the Policy on merits and considers all the other
arguments addressed by the respective
counsels.
21.11. The opening paragraphs of the Policy
acknowledge that acquisition for the Metro
project has, in some cases, left the remaining
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 65 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
buildings or sites without access because their
entire frontage was acquired. They also
recognise that acquisition of only part of a
property may affect direct access from the
existing road to the remaining land. The Policy
states that access in such cases may be
unavoidable because of the nature and extent
of the Metro alignment. BMRCL thus recognises
that the project itself may create the need for
access over its land. The issue is whether the
terms prescribed to address that need are fair
and lawful.
21.12. Clause 1 of the Way Leave Policy is reproduced
below:
1. Way leave facilities on BMRCL land involve
limited use of land by a party for a specified
purpose like passage etc. without conferring
upon the party any ownership or right of
possession or occupation of the land and
without in any way affecting the BMRCL's title,
possession, control and use of the land.
21.13. Clause 1 defines a way-leave facility as limited
use of BMRCL land for a specified purpose,
without transferring ownership, possession or
occupation. The Petitioner does not claim
ownership of the land over which access is
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 66 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
sought. Its case is that the conditions imposed
on access must nevertheless be fair where the
property has been left without access because
of the Metro project.
21.14. Clause 2 is reproduced below:
2. The requests/applications for granting way
leave facilities shall be considered with due
regard to the circumstances of each case. Some
such circumstances may be :-
(a) Non-availability of any other means of
access to properties / houses/places of
business.
(b) Non-feasibility of provision of water supply,
electricity, sewerage etc. from any other
direction.
(c) Other means of access are available, but
not enough to meet the requirements of the
applicant
21.15. Clause 7 is reproduced below:
7. Way leave facilities should not be granted as
a matter of routine, but only after consideration
of case on merits after site inspection. Special
care should be taken to see that the way leave
facility doesn't in any way impinge on the
safety & security of metro operations & BMRCL
property.
21.16. Clause 12 is reproduced below:
12. In cases not covered by the above way
leave policy, a decision shall be taken with the
approval of the Managing Director.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 67 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
21.17. Clauses 2, 7 and 12 require BMRCL to consider
each application on its merits, including the
availability or adequacy of other access and the
feasibility of utility connections from another
direction. Clause 7 requires a site inspection
and protection of Metro operations and BMRCL
property. Clause 12 permits the Managing
Director to decide cases not covered by the
Policy. These provisions recognise that
individual circumstances matter, but do not by
themselves resolve the challenge to the
mandatory termination and charging provisions.
21.18. Clause 3, including the termination provision
challenged by the Petitioner, is reproduced
below:
3. In genuine and unavoidable cases, way leave
facility may be allowed, if feasible and for the
developments coming up on this property, after
execution of proper agreement. Land cannot be
given on lease/license in such cases and only
permission / leave is to be granted for a limited
use which is to be specified in detail in the
agreement. To avoid any misunderstanding on
this score, the agreement should not use terms
like ‘Lease/License and Rent/License fee etc.’
but only permission and way leave. The
agreement should also clearly stipulate that the
Metro Rail Administration retains full rights to
enter upon, pass through or use the land, or to
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 68 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
discontinue the way leave facility at any time,
without any notice to the party. In the event of
the way leave facility being discontinued with,
the BMRCL will not be liable to pay any
compensation or reimburse any amount to the
party, nor to provide any alternative
arrangement for access etc., In such a case,
any installations like underground pipelines
etc., put up by the party are liable to be
removed/shifted by the party at his/its own
cost.
21.19. Clause 3 permits BMRCL to discontinue access
at any time without notice. It excludes
compensation, reimbursement or refund and
does not require BMRCL to provide alternative
access. It also places on the user the cost of
removing or shifting installations, including
underground pipelines. The issue is whether
these terms are fair and lawful when applied to
an owner whose original frontage and access
were lost through acquisition for the Metro
project.
21.20. Clause 4 is reproduced hereunder for ease of
reference:
4. The following amount shall be charged by
BMRCL on the party requesting for the way leave,
for different activities It shall be made clear in the
agreement that these charges are subject to
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 69 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
revision and the revised rates shall be applicable
when the agreement is revised.
Way leave
Item Type of way leave
charges
1(a) Passage/pathway on/across BMRCL
land (up to 3.5 metres wide) for
vehicular access.
(If property became landlocked,
with no other access as on the date
of acquisition of the land)
Free of cost
1(b) Passage for vehicles, scooters etc.
(i.e., between 3.5–7 metres wide)
3% of the
guidance
value
notified by
the State
Government
per annum.
Way leave
agreement
shall be
entered into
for 10 years
and way
leave
charges shall
be paid
upfront for
the 10-year
period.
Renewal of
the
agreement
after 10
years will be
at 3% of the
then
prevailing
guidance
value per
annum.
1(c) Passage for vehicles, scooters etc.
(i.e., between 7–12 metres wide)
6% of the
guidance
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 70 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
value
notified by
the State
Government
per annum.
Way leave
agreement
shall be
entered into
for 10 years
and way
leave
charges shall
be paid
upfront for
the 10-year
period.
Renewal of
the
agreement
after 10
years will be
at 6% of the
then
prevailing
guidance
value per
annum.
1(d) Passage for vehicles, scooters etc.
(i.e., between 12–20 metres wide)
10% of the
guidance
value
notified by
the State
Government
per annum.
Way leave
agreement
shall be
entered into
for 10 years
and way
leave
charges shall
be paid
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 71 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
upfront for
the 10-year
period.
Renewal of
the
agreement
after 10
years will be
at 10% of
the then
prevailing
guidance
value per
annum.
2(a) Electric lines (domestic
purpose/service line) crossing for
individual houses, shops etc. (both
underground and overhead)
Rs. 25,000/-
per annum.
Way leave
agreement
shall be
entered into
for 10 years
and the
charges for
10 years
shall be paid
upfront.
Renewal of
this
agreement
will be at the
discretion of
BMRCL for
another 10
years with a
50%
increase in
charges.
2(b) Water/sewage/effluent pipeline
crossing for individual up to 300
mm diameter.
Same as
item 2(a).
2(c) Electrical crossings by State
Electricity Boards and Central
Agencies.
Same as
item 2(a).
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 72 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
Same as
item 2(a).
2(d) Open drains and overground
water/sewage/oil/gas/effluent
pipelines by private parties
(including public sector
undertakings).
2(e) Underground oil/gas/pipelines. Same as
item 2(a).
2(f) Underground/overhead electrical
crossing other than covered under
item 2(c); underground cables and
alignment in favour of the
Department of
Telecommunications/BSNL/other
telecom operators. This includes
laying of Optic Fiber Cable (OFC).
Same as
item 2(a).
3 If electrical cable/pipeline is to be
laid parallel to the BMRCL
alignment in BMRCL land.
(a) Up to a
length of 250
metres: Rs.
25,000/- per
annum.
(b) Beyond
250 metres:
Rs. 100 per
running
metre per
annum. Way
leave
agreement
shall be
entered into
for 10 years
and way
leave
charges shall
be paid
upfront for
the 10-year
period.
Renewal of
this
agreement
will be at the
discretion of
BMRCL for
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 73 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
another 10
years with a
50%
increase in
charges.
Note:
i) Acquired land means land which is acquired
/purchased / surrendered for the Bangalore Metro
Rail Project, from the party seeking way leave
permission.
ii) Way leave charges will be calculated based on
the guidance value as on the date of original
application for way leave facility by the applicant.
iii) Way leave charges shall be remitted upfront for
a block period of 10 years for all the way leave
permissions.
21.21. Clause 9 is reproduced below:
9. In all cases of way leave facility granted,
proper agreement should be executed
Agreement should provide for remittance of
way leave charges upfront on signing of the
agreement and revision by way leave charges
from time to time, as provided in the policy.
21.22. Read together, Clauses 4 and 9 and Note (iii)
provide free vehicular access up to 3.5 metres
for a qualifying landlocked property, while
wider passages attract charges based on the
guidance value, payable ten years in advance.
Since the first 3.5 metres is free, the charges
under items 1(b) to 1(d) are leviable only for
the width over and above 3.5 metres. The
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 74 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
Policy also prescribes charges for specified
utility crossings. The question is whether this
structure fairly accounts for an owner who
requires replacement access because the
original frontage was acquired for the Metro
project.
WHETHER ACCESS IS MERELY A DISCRETIONARY
BENEFIT
21.23. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that the land belongs to BMRCL and that way-
leave access is granted at its discretion.
BMRCL’s ownership is not disputed. However,
ownership alone does not permit a public body
to impose arbitrary conditions on access to a
property.
21.24. The Petitioner’s case is that BMRCL’s acquisition
for the Metro project removed the direct access
or frontage of the property, leaving the
remaining property dependent on way-leave
access. The Petitioner belongs to the class of
owners whose access was lost in this manner.
Clause 4 recognises the special position of a
property that became landlocked and had no
other access on the date of acquisition,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 75 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
providing free access up to 3.5 metres. Clauses
2 and 7 require individual consideration of
applications, site inspection and regard to
Metro safety. The validity of the challenged
termination and charging provisions must be
assessed against this context.
THE TERMINATION PROVISION AND ARTICLE 14
21.25. Article 14 requires public authorities to act
fairly and not arbitrarily. Clause 3 permits
BMRCL to discontinue access at any time
without notice. It does not require reasons or
specify the circumstances in which termination
may take place. It also excludes compensation
or refund and provides no alternative access.
21.26. Read with Clause 4, which requires ten years’
charges in advance for wider passages, Clause
3 permits BMRCL to discontinue access after
receiving advance payment without refunding
any part of it. The owner must also bear the
cost of removing or shifting installations.
21.27. These terms are inconsistent with the Policy’s
requirement for individual consideration before
access is granted. Although Clauses 2 and 7
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 76 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
require BMRCL to consider the circumstances of
the property and Metro safety, Clause 3
permits access to be withdrawn without notice,
reasons or safeguards.
21.28. BMRCL must be able to discontinue a way-leave
facility for reasons relating to safety, security or
Metro operations. The defect lies in the
unrestricted power conferred by Clause 3 and
the absence of safeguards against arbitrary
termination. The provision is therefore arbitrary
under Article 14 insofar as it permits access to
be withdrawn without notice, refund or
alternative access in the circumstances of the
Petitioner’s case.
21.29. BMRCL’s assurance that it will not cancel access
if charges are paid and that the arrangement
will be renewed from time to time does not
cure the defect. That assurance is not
contained in the Policy. Its validity must be
assessed by the power Clause 3 confers, not by
an assurance about how BMRCL expects to
exercise it.
THE CHARGING PROVISIONS AND ARTICLE 14
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 77 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
21.30. The Petitioner does not contend that BMRCL
can never charge for the use of its land. The
challenge is to applying the prescribed charges
to replacement access required in the
circumstances identified above.
21.31. Clause 4 prescribes charges according to
passage width. It does not distinguish between
an applicant seeking additional access for other
reasons and an owner who requires
replacement access. Although Clause 2
recognises that existing access may be
insufficient, the charging provisions do not
adequately account for the circumstances that
necessitate replacement access.
21.32. The width of a passage may affect the use of
BMRCL land and Metro operations. However,
applying the same charging structure without
accounting for the reason access is required
places an arbitrary financial burden on the
Petitioner.
21.33. BMRCL relies on the compensation paid for the
acquired land and demolished structure. That
payment does not, by itself, establish that the
separate charging conditions for replacement
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 78 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
access are fair. The scope of compensation and
its relationship to the claim for loss of access
fall for consideration under Point (iv).
21.34. The requirement to pay ten years’ charges in
advance further aggravates the burden. The
charges are linked to the guidance value, and
renewal charges are based on the value
prevailing at the time of renewal. Read with
Clause 3, the Policy requires a substantial
advance payment for access that may be
discontinued without notice or refund.
21.35. The Court does not question the technical
competence of the officers who fixed the rates
or revised the percentages. The constitutional
defect lies in the charging structure and its
failure to account for the circumstances in
which replacement access is required.
21.36. BMRCL’s submission that the Petitioner has no
vested right to 12 metres of free access
concerns the width and form of access sought.
That issue falls under Point (iii). The present
issue is the validity of the charging provisions.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 79 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
ARTICLE 300A AND THE ULTRA VIRES
CHALLENGE
21.37. Article 300A provides that no person shall be
deprived of property except by authority of law.
The acquisition in this case was undertaken
under law and is not challenged in this petition.
The present issue concerns the conditions
imposed on access to the remaining property.
The loss of access affects its practical use and
is relevant to the assessment of the Policy.
21.38. The finding rests principally on Article 14.
Article 300A reinforces the need to consider the
effect of the Policy on the use of the remaining
property, but does not, by itself, establish a
right to a passage of any particular width.
21.39. The Petitioner also challenges the Policy as
ultra vires. However, neither party has
identified the specific statutory provision under
which the Policy was framed or the statutory
limit that it is alleged to exceed. No separate
finding is made on that ground.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 80 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
ARTICLE 19(1)(G) AND THE RESPONDENTS’
OBJECTION
21.40. Article 19(1)(g) protects the right to practise a
profession or carry on an occupation, trade or
business, subject to constitutionally permitted
restrictions. The Petitioner does not claim that
this provision guarantees access of the precise
width sought. The finding on the challenged
provisions therefore rests on Article 14.
21.41. BMRCL submits that invalidating the challenged
provisions may deprive the Petitioner of even
the free 3.5-metre passage. This objection does
not justify retaining provisions that impose
arbitrary conditions. The Policy’s provision for
free access up to 3.5 metres in qualifying cases
is not itself under challenge.
21.42. For the reasons stated above, THIS Court
answers Point No. (ii) by holding that the
Petitioner has established grounds for declaring
the following provisions of the Way Leave Policy
unconstitutional, invalid and unenforceable in
their application:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 81 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
21.42.1. Clause 3, insofar as it permits BMRCL to
discontinue access at any time without
notice and excludes refund or alternative
access upon discontinuance.
21.42.2. The charging provisions of Clause 4,
namely items 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d), and
items 2(a) and 2(b) relating to electricity
lines and water or sewage pipelines
serving the remaining property, read
with Note (iii), Clause 9, and the
requirements for payment of ten years’
charges in advance and revision or
renewal of charges by reference to the
prevailing guidance value.
21.43. The declaration does not invalidate the
remainder of the Way Leave Policy.
22. Answer to Point No. (iii): Whether the
Petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus
under prayer (b), directing the Respondents to
provide, permanently and free of cost, an
unrestricted six-metre-wide ingress and a
separate six-metre-wide egress to the Schedule
Property from the northern side, together with
the necessary rights to install and maintain
water, electricity and sewerage connections
over the relevant acquired land; and, in
particular, whether the Respondents can
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 82 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
restrict such access to the arrangement
contemplated under the impugned Way Leave
Policy and subject any additional access to
licence charges and time-bound conditions?
22.1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the Petitioner owns Municipal No. 28/B, PID No.
57-137-28B, Sarakki Industrial Layout,
measuring 766.26 square metres. The property
contains a commercial building with a super
built-up area of 21,839 square feet, comprising
the ground floor and four upper floors. Before
acquisition, the property had a full and wide
entry and exit on the eastern side facing the
main road, and the entire frontage served as
access. On 07.03.2017, BMRCL, through
KIADB, acquired 152 square metres on the
eastern side.
22.2. Learned Counsel submits that the road-facing
portion of the building was demolished and the
Metro station was constructed. The acquisition
took away the frontage and former access,
leaving the remaining property without
effective ingress or egress. The photographs
and site layout are relied on to show that the
Metro station now abuts the property and that
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 83 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
no other access is available. The Petitioner did
not voluntarily surrender the frontage; the land
was acquired in exercise of the State’s power of
eminent domain.
22.3. Learned Counsel submits that the effect of
acquisition cannot be assessed only by the area
taken. The use made of the acquired land may
affect access to, and the practical use of, the
remaining property. Compensation for the
acquired land and demolished structure does
not, by itself, resolve whether the remaining
property has reasonable and usable access. The
request is for a replacement route made
necessary by the Metro project, not an
additional facility sought merely for
convenience.
22.4. Learned Counsel submits that, by letter dated
15.04.2024, the Petitioner sought a separate
six-metre ingress and a separate six-metre
egress from the northern side. BMRCL’s replies
dated 28.06.2024 and 19.11.2024 offered a
combined six-metre passage, subject to
advance way-leave charges and a ten-year
agreement. By letter dated 23.12.2024, BMRCL
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 84 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
stated that free access was available only up to
3.5 metres. Before this Court, BMRCL has
offered 3.5 metres free and a further five
metres on payment. None of these proposals
provides the separate entry and exit lanes
sought.
22.5. Learned Counsel submits that the Schedule
Property is a large commercial building
previously leased to M/s GraphX Solution India
Private Limited. The Property would once again
have to be let out, and its use involves
employees, customers, visitors, service
providers, vehicles, deliveries, goods and
maintenance. Pedestrian access alone would
not be adequate. Access must be suited to the
building’s size, layout and lawful commercial
use, including access to its parking facilities and
the movement of goods and materials.
22.6. Learned Counsel further submits that fire
tenders and other emergency vehicles must be
able to reach the building. Adequacy depends
not only on nominal width but also on turning
radius, clear height, alignment and
obstructions. The Policy’s minimum free width
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 85 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
cannot replace a site-specific assessment or
override applicable safety requirements. A fire
in the building may also pose a risk to the
adjoining Metro station and its commuters. The
Petitioner relies on Article 21 in support of the
need for safe access.
22.7. Learned Counsel submits that Clause 4 of the
Way Leave Policy provides free access up to 3.5
metres for qualifying landlocked properties, but
that width cannot be treated as sufficient in
every case. The Petitioner does not contend
that Article 19(1)(g) guarantees any particular
width of access. Its submission is that the State
and its instrumentalities must not disregard the
effect of their actions on the lawful use of the
remaining property. The Petitioner seeks a
proportionate arrangement that permits the
Metro project to continue while restoring
effective access.
22.8. Learned Counsel submits that prayer (b) seeks
permanent access comprising a six-metre
ingress and a separate six-metre egress from
the northern side, together with the right to
install and maintain water, electricity and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 86 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
sewerage lines over the relevant land. The
width and configuration must be assessed in
relation to the property’s size, shape, use and
applicable safety and operational requirements.
22.9. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that BMRCL admits acquisition of 152 square
metres on the eastern side of the Petitioner’s
property. The acquired land is bounded by the
road to the east, the remaining portion of
Property No. 28/B to the west, the property of
Prema Raghu N. V. to the north and the
property of Madhusudhan P. Patel to the south.
BMRCL admits that the acquired portion is now
its property and that part of the building was
demolished after possession was taken through
the Special Land Acquisition Officer, for which
compensation was paid.
22.10. Learned Counsel submits that BMRCL is not
obliged to provide twelve metres of free access.
It is willing to provide 3.5 metres free under
the Policy and a further five metres on
payment. BMRCL contends that the northern
land is also required for Metro infrastructure
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 87 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
and that the Petitioner has no vested right to
twelve metres of free access.
22.11. On utility connections, Learned Counsel for the
Respondents initially submits that the Policy
does not cover water, electricity and sewerage
connections through BMRCL land. BMRCL
nevertheless states that a joint inspection was
held on 28.03.2025 in the presence of the
Tahsildar and BMRCL’s Assistant Engineer and
Legal Advisor, and that locations for electric,
sewage and water lines were marked. The plan
is produced as Annexure-R2. BMRCL is willing
to permit the lines at those points, subject to
the Policy and payment of applicable charges.
It also states that it is willing to provide an
additional five metres of access over and above
the free 3.5 metres on the same conditions.
The Petitioner has throughout sought separate
ingress and egress, each six metres wide.
ISSUES AND MATERIAL FACTS
22.12. Point (iii) concerns the relief sought under
prayer (b): permanent and free access
comprising a six-metre ingress and a separate
six-metre egress from the northern side,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 88 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
together with the right to install and maintain
water, electricity and sewerage lines. The
questions are what access is reasonably
required, whether BMRCL may confine the
Petitioner to its standard Policy arrangement,
and on what terms replacement access and
utility routes must be provided. The validity of
the relevant charging and termination
provisions has been considered under Point (ii).
22.13. The material facts are substantially undisputed.
BMRCL admits that 152 square metres of the
eastern, road-facing portion were acquired,
that the land is now BMRCL property, and that
part of the building was demolished. The
correspondence records the Petitioner’s request
for separate six-metre entry and exit lanes on
15.04.2024; BMRCL’s proposals for a combined
six-metre passage on 28.06.2024 and
19.11.2024, subject to advance payment and a
ten-year agreement; its letter dated
23.12.2024 referring to free access of 3.5
metres; and its offer before this Court of 3.5
metres free plus five metres on payment. None
provides the separate lanes sought.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 89 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
22.14. BMRCL has not identified another effective
route into the Schedule Property. Its own
proposals to provide access over land under its
control support the conclusion that the property
has lost its former access and requires a
replacement route. BMRCL has admitted that
the land on the northern side belongs to it, and
it is from that land that it proposed to provide
3.5 metres free and a further five metres on
payment. There is no dispute as to BMRCL’s
ownership of that land.
ENTITLEMENT TO REPLACEMENT ACCESS; WHY IT
MUST BE FREE AND PERMANENT
22.15. The Petitioner previously had direct access from
the main road on the eastern side. That
frontage was acquired and the road-facing part
of the building was demolished for the Metro
project. The remaining property thereby lost its
former access. The Petitioner seeks to replace
access lost through acquisition and
construction, not merely to improve
convenience.
22.16. BMRCL’s ownership of the land proposed for the
replacement route entitles it to protect its
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 90 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
property and the safe operation of the Metro. It
does not, by itself, answer whether the
remaining property may be left without
effective access after the project took away the
former route. The Policy itself recognises that
acquisition may leave a property without
access. In the circumstances of this case,
replacement access is necessary to make the
remaining property reasonably usable. The
source of the Petitioner’s entitlement is the
admitted fact that BMRCL, by its acquisition
and construction of the Metro station, closed
the existing access and left the remaining
property without access. Having deprived the
Petitioner of its access, BMRCL is bound to
provide replacement access, and it is therefore
unnecessary to examine whether an easement
of necessity is made out.
22.17. Under Point (ii), the relevant charging
provisions and the Policy’s unilateral
termination provision have been held invalid
and unenforceable insofar as they apply to
owners whose access was lost through BMRCL
acquisition and who require replacement
access. BMRCL cannot rely on those provisions
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 91 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
to require advance payment, a ten-year
agreement, renewal at revised rates or
discretionary withdrawal of access in this case.
22.18. Compensation for the acquired land and
demolished structure does not, by itself,
resolve the separate question of access.
Compensation is considered under Point (iv).
For present purposes, payment of acquisition
compensation is not a sufficient reason to
require the Petitioner to pay again for the route
made necessary by the acquisition.
22.19. The Policy’s free-access provision recognises
the distinction between replacement access
made necessary by acquisition and additional
access sought for convenience. However, the
standard width of 3.5 metres cannot
conclusively determine what this property
reasonably requires. The need for replacement
access will continue for as long as the Schedule
Property requires it. A ten-year permission
subject to renewal and revised charges would
leave use of the property dependent on periodic
approval and expose the Petitioner to the risk
of losing access. No sufficient reason has been
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 92 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
shown for imposing that uncertainty. Access
must therefore be permanent and continue in
perpetuity, subject to law and reasonable
safeguards that protect Metro operations
without defeating the right granted.
WHETHER SEPARATE SIX-METRE INGRESS AND
EGRESS ARE JUSTIFIED
22.20. The Petitioner seeks a six-metre ingress and a
separate six-metre egress. BMRCL has offered
a combined six-metre passage and later offered
3.5 metres free plus five metres on payment,
making 8.5 metres in total. The question is
whether the proposed arrangement provides
safe, reasonable and dependable access for a
large commercial building, including two-way
vehicle movement, deliveries, movement of
goods and access by emergency services.
22.21. An owner cannot insist on a width merely
because it is preferred. The width must bear a
reasonable relationship to the size and use of
the property, site configuration and applicable
safety and operational requirements. However,
a standard width in a policy cannot be
conclusive where the Policy itself requires
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 93 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
individual consideration. Clause 2 identifies
inadequate alternative access as relevant;
Clause 7 requires consideration of the merits
after site inspection; and Clause 12 provides for
cases not covered by the Policy to be decided
with the Managing Director’s approval.
22.22. The Schedule Property contains a commercial
building with a super built-up area of 21,839
square feet over five floors and parking
facilities. Its use involves employees,
customers, service providers, deliveries,
maintenance and movement of goods. A
pedestrian route or a single narrow passage
does not, without more, establish adequate
access. BMRCL has not produced material
showing that separate lanes are unnecessary or
that a lesser configuration would provide
equivalent and dependable access.
22.23. The dimensions of ordinary vehicles illustrate
the practical issue but do not determine the
technical requirement. A bus or goods truck
may be about 2.5 to 3.5 metres wide,
depending on the vehicle, and mirrors require
additional clearance. Fire engines vary in size
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 94 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
and need sufficient clear width and turning
space. Actual requirements depend on vehicle
dimensions, turning radius, clear height,
alignment, surface and obstructions. No site-
specific technical report on these matters has
been identified in the material before the Court.
22.24. Separate ingress and egress reduce the
likelihood that entering and exiting vehicles will
obstruct one another. In a single passage, a
vehicle breakdown or obstruction may prevent
both entry and exit and delay emergency
access. Separate lanes do not eliminate every
risk, but they provide a more dependable
arrangement.
22.25. BMRCL’s proposals have varied: a combined
six-metre passage in the letters dated
28.06.2024 and 19.11.2024; 3.5 metres free in
the letter dated 23.12.2024; and 3.5 metres
free plus five metres on payment before this
Court. These proposals show the widths BMRCL
was willing to offer under its Policy.
22.26. The joint inspection dated 28.03.2025 is relied
on in relation to locations marked for utility
lines. The record does not establish that BMRCL
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 95 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
assessed the width and configuration needed
for vehicular access, including two-way
movement, emergency access and risk of
obstruction. Nor has it explained why separate
entry and exit lanes cannot be accommodated.
22.27. BMRCL’s statement that it was willing to
provide five metres in addition to the free 3.5
metres does not establish that the Petitioner
abandoned the claim for separate six-metre
lanes. The Petitioner did not accept that offer,
and no document records any reduction in the
request. The Petitioner’s letter dated
15.04.2024 sought separate six-metre entry
and exit lanes, and its reply dated 27.11.2024
maintained that request while disputing the
charges. The Petitioner continues to seek the
same relief. In any event, one combined
passage of 8.5 metres is not equivalent to two
separate six-metre lanes.
22.28. BMRCL submits that the northern land is
required for infrastructure. The Metro’s public
purpose and operational requirements must be
respected. However, BMRCL has not identified a
particular plan, structure, operational need or
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 96 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
safety constraint that would be affected by the
access sought. Nor has it explained why the
land it is willing to use for an 8.5-metre
passage cannot accommodate separate entry
and exit lanes.
22.29. The Policy contemplates passages wider than
3.5 metres, with categories for widths of 3.5–7
metres, 7–12 metres and 12–20 metres.
BMRCL has described the request as a total
width of twelve metres. The Policy therefore
does not treat that width as inherently
impermissible. The issue is whether the
configuration is justified on the facts and
whether BMRCL properly considered the
circumstances. The charging provisions cannot
defeat the relief for the reasons given under
Point (ii).
BUILDING REGULATIONS, ZONING AND
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
22.30. The Petitioner relies on Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, of which Bye-
law 9.2, read with Table 6, and Bye-law 9.10
link plot coverage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
for commercial buildings, among other things,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 97 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
to plot area, development-area classification
and road width. The Petitioner submits that
replacement access must permit lawful and
effective use of the existing building under
applicable building regulations.
22.31. Bye-law 9.2, Table 6, and Bye-law 9.10 of the
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-
laws, 2003, are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
9.2 Exterior open spaces/ setbacks, coverage,
floor area ratio, numbers of floors and heights -
The setbacks required on all the sides of
building/s, maximum plot coverage, maximum
FAR, maximum number of floors, maximum
height of buildings that are permissible for
different dimensioned sites and widths of roads
are set out in Tables 4, 5 and 6 given below.
TABLE 6 (Bye-law 9.2 and 9.10)
COVERAGE AND FAR FOR RESIDENTIAL,
COMMERCIAL, PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC,
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION, AND PUBLIC
UTILITY BUILDING
Public & Semi
Plot
Residential Commercial
Public T&T &
Road width
Area in
(Mtrs)
Public Utilities
Sq. mtr.
Plot F.A.R. Plot F.A.R. Plot F.A.R.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 98 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
Cove-
Max. Cove-
Max. Cove-
Max.
rage
rage
rage
Max.
Max.
Max.
A – INTENSELY DEVELOPED AREA
Upto 240 65% 0.75 65% 1.00 60% 1.00 Upto 6
Over 240
60% 0.75 60% 1.00 55% 1.00 Over 6 upto 9
Upto 500
Over 500
60% 1.00 60% 1.25 50% 1.00 Over 9 upto 12
Upto 750
Over 750
60% 1.00 60% 1.25 50% 1.25 Over 12 upto 15
Upto 1000
Over 1000 60% 1.25 55% 1.50 45% 1.25 Over 15
B – MODERATELY DEVELOPED AREA
Upto 240 65% 1.00 65% 1.25 60% 1.00 Upto 9
Over 240
60% 1.25 60% 1.50 55% 1.25 Over 9 upto 12
Upto 500
Over 500
60% 1.25 60% 1.50 50% 1.25 Over 12 upto 15
Upto 750
Over 750
60% 1.50 60% 1.75 50% 1.50 Over 15 upto 18
Upto 1000
Over 1000 60% 1.75 55% 1.75 45% 1.50 Over 18
C - SPARSELY DEVELOPED AREA
Upto 240 65% 1.00 65% 1.25 60% 1.25 Upto 9
Over 240
60% 1.25 60% 1.50 55% 1.50 Over 9 upto 12
Upto 500
Over 500 60% 1.50 60% 1.75 50% 1.50 Over 12 upto 15
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 99 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
Upto 750
Over 750
60% 1.50 60% 1.75 50% 1.80 Over 15 upto 18
upto 1000
Over 1000 60% 2.00 55% 2.00 45% 1.80 Over 18
Note 1 : The dimensions in British system if any,
adopted for the dimensions of plots may be
interpreted as follows in Metric system and set
backs may be applied accordingly. 20’-0” – 6.0 m
30’-0” – 9.0 m 40’-0” – 12.0 m 50’-0” – 15.0 m 60’-
0” – 18.0 m 80’-0” – 24.0 m
Note 2 : The open spaces to be provided shall
conform to the height necessary to consume the
permissible FAR.
Note 3 : (a) The front and rear set backs shall be
with reference to the depth of the site. (b) The left
and right set backs shall be with reference to the
width of the site. (c) If the height of a building
exceeds 9.5 metres, the set backs to be provided
shall be higher of the set backs specified in tables 4
and 5.
Note 4 : Building lines have been prescribed to
certain roads by the Bangalore Development
Authority in Table 33 of the Zoning Regulations.
This table is appended as Schedule X to these bye-
laws. In such cases, the front set back or the
building line which is higher of the two shall be
provided.
Note 5 : In the case of corner sites both the sides
facing the road shall be treated as front side and
regulations applied accordingly to maintain the
building line on these roads and to provide better
visibility.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 100 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
Note 6 : In the case of a building facing more than
two roads, the plot should be considered as corner
plot taking two wider roads into consideration.
Note 7 : In the case of sites facing roads both in
front and rear, both the sides facing roads should
be treated as front and other two sides not facing
roads should be treated as right and the setbacks
be applied accordingly.
Note 8 : In case where the plinth of the building is
not parallel to the property line, the setbacks shall
not be less than the specified setbacks at any given
point on any side.
Note 9 : In case of irregular plots the set-backs are
to be calculated according to the depth or width at
the points where the depths or widths are varying.
Average set-backs shall not be considered in such
cases.
Note 10 : The left and right set-backs may be
interchanged by the Authority in exceptional cases
due to existing structures like; open well and also
considering the topography of the land. However,
this shall be resorted to by the Authority only as an
exception.
Note 11 : Set-backs should be provided in the
owner’s plot. Public open space or conservancy
should not be considered as set-backs.
Note 12 : In case of two or more buildings proposed
on a single site, the set-backs shall be applied by
considering them as a common building. In such
cases, the distance between the two buildings shall
be minimum of half the height of the taller building.
Note 13 : For plots with an area of more than 750
sqm. bell mouth entrance shall be provided.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 101 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
Note 14 : The front set back mentioned above are
minimum. The building shall be shifted back to the
building lines, if any declared by any competent
authority.
9.10 Limitations of floor area and covered area
9.10.1 The coverage, and FAR, for different sizes of
plots with reference to existing road width as
limiting factor are given in the table No.6 for
various types of buildings like residential,
commercial, public and semi-public, etc. The local
planning area of Bangalore City is divided into A, B
& C areas by the Bangalore Development Authority
for the purpose of regulating building constructions
as under:-
A: Intensely developed area.
B: Moderately developed area.
C:– Sparsely developed area .
Note : (1) A map showing the details of A, B and C
areas is available in the office of the Bangalore
Development Authority, Bangalore. A copy of this
map is appended to these bye-laws.
Note : (2) When two sides of the same road are
included in two different areas like: A and B or A
and C, then both the sides shall be treated as
intensively developed area (‘A’ area) up to one
property depth.
Note : (3) When two sides of the same road are
included in two different areas like: B and C, then
both the sides shall be treated as moderately
developed area (‘B’ area) up to one property depth.
9.10.2 In respect of the following buildings, the
maximum coverage shall be as prescribed below.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 102 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
Building Permissible maximum
coverage
a. Hospital 25%
b. Health centre/nursing home 33.33%
c. Nursery school/primary school 33.33%
d. Secondary school 30%
e. College 25%
9.10.3 (a) The floor area of a building shall be the
aggregate area of the floors of all parts of the
building including thickness of walls, parking area,
staircase rooms, lift rooms, ramps, escalators,
machine rooms, balconies, ducts including sanitary
ducts, water tanks, lobbies, corridors, foyers and
such other parts provided for common service.
(b) The floor area ratio shall exempt the floor area
used for the following purposes, namely:- (i)
parking space (ii) staircase rooms (iii) lift rooms (iv)
ramps (v) escalators (vi) machine rooms (vii) open
balconies (viii) ducts including sanitary ducts and
(ix) water tanks.
(c) Parking area shall be exempted to the extent
required for the building.
(d) The area covered by the following structures on
the roof are exempted from the floor area upto
fifteen percent of the area of the roof over which
they are erected, namely:- (i) staircase rooms (ii)
lift machine rooms (iii) pent house (iv) water tanks
(v) equipments for ventilation, air conditioning and
similar services. (e) Lobbies, corridors provided in
the plan shall be considered for F.A.R.
(f) The nomenclature of certain roads may differ
with those mentioned in the District Maps of the
Revised C.D.P. In such cases, the location of the
site may be considered to determine the land use.
Note : One penthouse only is permissible for a
building. The area of the penthouse with staircase
room shall be limited to 19 sq.mtrs. If this limit is
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 103 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
exceeded, the structures shall be considered for
reckoning the FAR.
9.10.4 When sites do not face the roads of required
width noted against each, then the FAR applicable
to the corresponding width of roads shall apply.
9.10.5 When a site faces wider road than the one
prescribed against it, the FAR shall be restricted
only to the limit prescribed for the area of that
particular site.
9.10.6 When coverage is less than the maximum
prescribed in Table 6, floors and height beyond the
limits indicated in table 5 may be permitted to
utilise the full FAR subject to the provision of
minimum set backs prescribed in Tables 4 and 5,
whichever is applicable.
9.10.7 The set-backs and coverage shall be
determined irrespective of the width of the road.
22.32. The schedule of the property in question as per
the lease deed is as under:-
SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of premises having a super
built-up area of 21,839 sq. ft. consisting Stilt + 3
floors + terrace, situated at Plot no 28/ B,
Bannergahatta Main Road, Sarakki Industrial Area,
JP Nagar, Phase III, Bangalore – 560076
22.33. A perusal of the above would indicate that the
super built-up area consists of stilt + three
floors + terrace. The said building has been put
to commercial use. The National Building Code,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 104 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
2016 determines the access required for a
building in order to provide a No-objection
Certificate by the fire and emergency services.
The fire and emergency services have
themselves not fixed any particular width of the
road, nor does the building bylaws or the zonal
regulation fix such width.
22.34. Regulation 4.6, which is the applicable
regulation in relation thereto is reproduced
hereunder for ease of reference:
4.6 For high rise buildings and special buildings
(see Part 4 'Fire and Life Safety' of the Code), the
following additional provisions of means of access
shall be ensured:
a) The width of the main street on which the
building abuts shall not be less than 12 m and one
end of this street shall join another street not less
than 12m in width.
b) The road shall not terminate in a dead end;
except in the case of residential building, up to a
height of 30 m.
c) The approach to the building and open spaces on
all its sides shall be not less than 6 m in width, and
a turning radius of minimum 9 m shall be provided
for fire tender movement of fire tenders weighing
up to 45 t. The same shall be hard surface capable
of taking the mass of fire tender, weighing up to 45
t minimum. For heavier fire tenders, the minimum
width, turning radius and the hard surface capable
of taking the fire tender loads shall be as per the
requirement laid down by the Fire Department. The
layout for the open space for fire tender movement
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 105 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
shall be done in consultation with the Chief Fire
Officer of the city, which shall be kept free of
obstructions and shall be motorable. The
compulsory open spaces around the building shall
not be used for parking.
d) The main entrance to the plot shall be of
adequate width to allow easy access to the fire
engine and in no case shall it measure less than 6
m. The entrance gate shall fold back against the
compound wall of the premises, thus leaving the
exterior accessway within the plot free for
movement of fire tender. If the main entrance at
the boundary wall is built over, the minimum
clearance shall be 4.5 m.
22.35. A perusal of the above regulation would
indicate that other than a high-rise building or
special building, the width of the main street on
which the building abuts shall not be less than
12 meters and one end of the street shall join
another street not less than 12 meters in width.
In the present case, what was requested for by
the Petitioner was 6 meters separate ingress
and 6 meters separate egress which is in tune
with the requirement of Regulation 4.6 of the
National Building Code.
22.36. Clause (ix) of Regulation 3.16 of the Zonal
Regulations of the Revised Master Plan 2015, is
reproduced hereunder for ease of reference:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 106 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
ix. Areas which fall within 150m radius from the
metro terminals shall be eligible for a maximum FAR
of 4 for all permissible uses, irrespective of the FAR
applicable for the respective uses in the respective
tables. However, this will be applied only after the
completion of the metro stations and also the same
to be confirmed by the BMRCL. Till such time the
existing regulations shall apply.
22.37. The above Clause IX of Regulation 3.16
provides for any building which falls within a
distance of 150 meters from the outer
boundary of the metro station/terminals to be
eligible for a maximum FAR of 4 for all
permissible uses, irrespective of the FAR
applicable for the respective uses in the
respective tables of the zoning regulation.
Admittedly, the property of the Petitioner
abutting the metro railway station is definitely
within 150 meters, and therefore would be
eligible to a FAR of 4. Thus, apart from the
construction which has already been put up,
the Petitioner would be entitled to put up
construction to an extent of 4 times the area of
the property.
22.38. If the area of 766.26 sq. mt. represents the
plot area before acquisition of 152 sq. mt. by
BMRCL, the residual plot area would be 614.26
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 107 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
sq. mt. The total permissible floor area at FAR
4 would then be 2,457.04 square meters or
approximately 26,447 square feet. The
construction which has been put up now, being
21,839 square feet, the Petitioner would, on
this calculation, be entitled to put up an
additional construction of approximately 4,608
square feet. Alternatively, if the area of 766.26
sq. mt. represents the plot area remaining after
acquisition of 152 sq. mt. by BMRCL, the total
extent area of the property being 766.26 sq.
mt., the Petitioner would be entitled to put up
766.26 into 4, i.e., 3,065.04 square meters or
approximately 32,992 square feet. The
construction which has been put up now, being
a super-built up area of 21,839 square feet, the
Petitioner would be entitled to put up an
additional construction of approximately 11,153
square feet.
22.39. As per the Schedule to the Lease Deed, the
property consists of stilt + 3 floors + terrace.
In terms of the zonal regulation, the height of
the building would vary on the ground coverage
permissible, taking into account the FAR
applicable. The FAR in the present matter being
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 108 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
assumed at 4, the total permissible floor area
would be approximately 32,992 square feet if
the plot area is 766.26 sq. m. after acquisition,
or approximately 26,447 square feet if the said
extent represents the plot area before
acquisition of 152 sq. m. by BMRCL. The actual
permissible construction would be subject to
verification of the plot area available for
development, the applicable Zonal Regulations
and the area of the existing construction
counted for FAR purposes.
22.40. The FAR being 4, the road access that would
have to be provided to the said building would
have to be commensurate with the FAR as per
the zonal regulation so as to make available the
incentive of 4 FAR being achieved by the land
user. Though the FAR is required to be provided
by a different authority, namely the local
planning authority and the BMRCL has nothing
to do with it, it is required for BMRCL to make
the achievement of the incentive of the
additional FAR possible.
22.41. Hence, taking into consideration the
requirement of the National Building Code, the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 109 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
minimum width of the road which is required to
be provided is 12 meters. It may be for
achieving the larger FAR, there may be a higher
road width which is required to be provided.
That would have to be ascertained during the
course of trial and cannot be done in this writ
petition. What this Court can only direct is the
provision of the minimum width of the road as
required under the National Building Code. If
the Petitioner has any further grievance relating
to the width of the road, then the same would
have to be agitated before the Civil Court and
proper reliefs would have to be sought for.
22.42. On the present record, separate six-metre
ingress and egress provide a more reasonable
and dependable arrangement than a single
combined passage. They address the separate
needs of entering and leaving traffic, reduce
the likelihood of obstruction and improve
access for emergency vehicles. BMRCL has not
established that the arrangement would
interfere with an identified Metro requirement
or that a lesser configuration would provide
adequate access. Separate six-metre ingress
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 110 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
and egress are therefore justified on the facts
of this case.
FIRE SAFETY, EMERGENCY ACCESS AND THE
ADJOINING METRO STATION
22.43. The building’s size and commercial use make
emergency access relevant. The Petitioner
submits that fire tenders must be able to reach
the building and that a fire could affect the
adjoining Metro station, its operations and
commuters.
22.44. The approximate dimensions of buses, trucks
and fire engines do not, by themselves,
establish the prescribed minimum width for this
site. The applicable requirement depends on
the relevant building and fire-safety standards
and the site-specific circumstances. Clause 4.6
of Part 3 of the National Building Code of India,
2016, prescribes certain requirements for
means of access to high-rise and special
buildings.
22.45. The Metro station and its commuters must be
protected. The station is on the eastern side,
where the former frontage was acquired, and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 111 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
the requested replacement access on the
northern side over land admitted to be held by
BMRCL. BMRCL has not identified a specific
security or operational risk arising from the
proposed northern access. It may impose
reasonable safeguards consistent with law, but
those safeguards must not narrow, obstruct or
withdraw the access granted without lawful
justification.
WATER, ELECTRICITY AND SEWERAGE
CONNECTIONS
22.46. BMRCL submits that the Policy does not cover
utility connections through its land. However,
the Policy’s introduction refers to way-leave
requests for underground water-supply and
sewerage pipelines and electrical and
telecommunication lines. Clause 2(b) identifies
the feasibility of providing water, electricity and
sewerage from another direction as a relevant
consideration. Items 2(a) and 2(b) of the
charging table prescribe charges for electric
service lines and water and sewage pipelines.
The Policy therefore contemplates such
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 112 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
installations, although it prescribes charges for
them.
22.47. The Petitioner does not ask BMRCL to supply
these services; it seeks the right to install and
maintain its own connections across the
relevant land. BMRCL states that locations for
water, sanitary and electric lines were marked
during the joint inspection on 28.03.2025 and
that it is willing to permit the lines at those
points. This is inconsistent with its initial
position that the lines cannot be provided under
the Policy and confirms that installation is
feasible in principle, subject to appropriate
alignment and safeguards.
22.48. For the reasons given under Point (ii), the
relevant charging provisions cannot be applied
to make the necessary replacement utility
routes chargeable in this case. The Petitioner
must bear the cost of installing and maintaining
the lines and any charges payable to the
relevant service providers. The lines shall be
laid at the points marked during the joint
inspection and shown in Annexure-R2, or at
such other points as may be marked in
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 113 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
accordance with the operative order. BMRCL
shall not obstruct the authorised lines except in
accordance with law and that order.
22.49. Water and sewerage pipes passing through the
acquired portion were closed during
construction and the replacement utility lines
have not yet been installed and commissioned.
Merely marking their locations does not secure
the Petitioner’s ability to install and maintain
them. The Petitioner must have the right to
route the necessary lines through the relevant
land, subject to applicable technical and safety
requirements. BMRCL need not supply the
services or bear the costs of obtaining,
installing, operating or maintaining the
connections.
22.50. Access to water and sanitation is closely
connected with the right to life and human
dignity under Article 21. Electricity is also
necessary for the ordinary and lawful use of a
modern commercial building. Where the need
to route utility lines arises from acquisition and
construction for the Metro project, BMRCL must
not impose conditions that leave the remaining
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 114 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
property without a practical means of obtaining
essential services merely to protect its
administrative or commercial interests.
APPLICATION OF THE POLICY AND BALANCE OF
INTERESTS
22.51. BMRCL appears to have treated the Policy’s
standard widths and charges as controlling. Yet
Clause 2 requires consideration of the
circumstances of each case, Clause 7 requires
consideration on the merits after site
inspection, and Clause 12 provides for cases
not covered by the Policy to be decided with
the Managing Director’s approval. A case like
this in which the entire road frontage has been
acquired and the remaining commercial
property has been left without effective access
requires individual assessment.
22.52. BMRCL’s positions have differed: it says the
Policy does not cover utility lines but offers to
permit them at marked points; it says the
northern land is needed for infrastructure but
has offered a passage of 8.5 metres; and its
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 115 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
access proposals have varied in width and
configuration. These changes have not been
accompanied by a reasoned explanation of
what the property requires or why separate six-
metre lanes cannot be provided.
22.53. The relief must respect the public purpose of
the Metro project. The Court does not direct the
return of acquired land or alteration of the
Metro station, nor does it transfer BMRCL’s
ownership or control of its land. The direction is
confined to replacement access and necessary
utility routes over land held by BMRCL. BMRCL
may protect its infrastructure and operations
through reasonable measures consistent with
this order, but the public purpose of the project
does not justify leaving the remaining property
without effective access where no specific
operational or safety impediment has been
demonstrated.
22.54. BMRCL’s offer of 3.5 metres free plus five
metres on payment does not resolve the issue.
A combined passage of 8.5 metres is not
equivalent to separate six-metre ingress and
egress, which together provide twelve metres,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 116 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
approximately 40 feet. Nor does an assurance
that access will not be cancelled while charges
are paid remove the time limit, renewal
conditions or payment burden found
inapplicable under Point (ii).
NATURE OF THE RIGHT AND IMPLEMENTATION
22.55. Replacement access cannot be made subject to
a ten-year agreement, periodic renewal,
revised way-leave charges or discretionary
withdrawal. It must continue in perpetuity,
subject to law. BMRCL cannot withdraw, curtail
or obstruct it merely at its discretion or because
a fixed term has expired. Any lawful restriction
must be supported by a genuine requirement
consistent with law and must not defeat the
right granted. Since the access is free and in
perpetuity, the question of termination of the
way-leave does not arise.
22.56. Permanent and free access does not transfer
ownership or possession of BMRCL’s land to the
Petitioner and does not create a public road.
The route is for the Petitioner and persons
lawfully using the Schedule Property to enter
and leave, and for authorised utility lines to
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 117 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
pass. No construction other than that
reasonably required for the access surface and
utility lines is permitted. Clauses 5 and 11 of
the Policy continue to apply to the extent
consistent with this order. BMRCL may take
reasonable measures to protect Metro safety,
security and operations, provided they do not
narrow, obstruct or render ineffective the
access granted.
22.57. The alignment of the two six-metre lanes shall
be marked on land held by BMRCL on the
northern side. It must avoid third-party land
and interference with the Metro station and its
operations. Utility lines shall be laid at the
points marked on 28.03.2025 and shown in
Annexure-R2, or at such other points as are
agreed or determined under the operative
order. Either party may approach this Court for
directions on a genuine implementation
dispute. Such an application shall not reopen
the entitlement to replacement access, its free
and permanent character, or the separate six-
metre widths determined under this Point,
subject only to the determination by the
committee mentioned below. Whether separate
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 118 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
six-metre width ingress and egress can be
provided shall be determined by a committee to
be constituted by the Managing Director of
BMRCL, comprising concerned officers having
the requisite technical expertise, after notice to
the Petitioner and having regard to the building
bye-laws, zonal regulations, fire force
requirements and the nature of the
construction. Only if the committee records in
writing, with reasons, that separate ingress and
egress cannot be provided, BMRCL shall provide
a single access of at least 40 feet (about 12.2
metres) for both ingress and egress.
22.58. This Court answers Point No. (iii) by holding
that the Petitioner is entitled to a writ of
mandamus under prayer (b). BMRCL shall
provide, free of cost and on a permanent basis,
over land held by BMRCL, a six-metre-wide
ingress and a separate six-metre-wide egress
to the Schedule Property from the northern
side; if the committee referred to above
records, with reasons, that separate ingress
and egress cannot be provided, BMRCL shall
instead provide a single access of at least 40
feet (about 12.2 metres) for both ingress and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 119 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
egress. The access shall continue in perpetuity
and shall not be withdrawn, curtailed, made
subject to renewal or obstructed at BMRCL’s
discretion. This direction is subject to law and
to reasonable safeguards for Metro safety,
security and operations, provided those
safeguards do not defeat or materially impair
the access granted.
22.59. BMRCL shall permit the Petitioner to install and
maintain water, electricity and sewerage lines
at the points marked during the joint inspection
on 28.03.2025 and shown in Annexure-R2, or
at such other points as are marked under the
operative order. The Petitioner shall bear the
costs of installing and maintaining the lines and
any applicable charges payable to the relevant
service providers. BMRCL shall not rely on the
charging provisions or fixed-term conditions of
the Way Leave Policy to deny, charge for or
interrupt the replacement access and utility
routes granted under this Point.
22.60. The exact alignment and marking shall be
settled under the operative directions, on land
held by BMRCL and without encroachment on
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 120 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
third-party land or interference with the Metro
station. Any dispute concerning implementation
may be brought before this Court in accordance
with the operative order.
23. Answer to Point No. (iv): Whether the
compensation paid in respect of the acquired
land and demolished structure precludes the
Petitioner from pursuing its distinct claim for
damages arising from the alleged loss of access
to the remaining Schedule Property?
23.1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the compensation paid for the land and building
acquired by BMRCL does not automatically
extinguish every separate claim arising from
the effect of the acquisition on the remaining
property. The compensation was paid for the
property taken over for the Metro project.
Prayer (c), by contrast, concerns losses
allegedly caused by the resulting loss of
effective access to the property left with the
Petitioner. The two claims must be considered
separately.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 121 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
23.2. Learned Counsel submits that, when only part
of a property is acquired, the effect on the
remainder must also be considered. Adequate
ingress and egress are necessary for the
effective use of a commercial building by its
owner, tenants, employees, customers and
other lawful users. The Petitioner’s case is that
its former access from the eastern side, facing
the main road, was entirely lost when the land
was acquired and the Metro station was
constructed, leaving the remaining building
without effective access and causing the tenant
to vacate.
23.3. Learned Counsel submits that compensation for
the acquired land and demolished structure is
distinct from losses caused by the deprivation
of access to the remaining property. Payment
for what was taken does not, by itself, settle
the consequences for what remained.
23.4. Learned Counsel also refers to the dispute
concerning compensation for the acquired
extent of 152 square metres. Compensation
was paid for 95.75 square metres, while the
remaining 56.25 square metres were treated as
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 122 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
kharab land. The Petitioner challenged that
treatment in W.P. No. 4125/2023, in which this
Court directed KIADB to take steps to issue a
corrigendum including the remaining extent
and to pay compensation. Learned Counsel
submits that this proceeding concerns a
separate issue from the claim arising from loss
of access.
23.5. Referring to BMRCL’s letter dated 23.12.2024,
Learned Counsel submits that the statement
that compensation included the demolished
building does not answer the claims concerning
loss of access, interruption of utility services or
loss of rental income. Nor does the statement
that the Petitioner was permitted to strengthen
the remaining floors at its own cost resolve
whether the building could be accessed and
used.
23.6. Learned Counsel accordingly submits that
prayer (c) is not a claim for duplicate
compensation for the acquired land or
demolished structure. It is a separate claim for
losses suffered because the remaining property
could not be accessed and effectively used.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 123 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
Acceptance of acquisition compensation does
not, by itself, bar consideration of that claim.
23.7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that the acquisition was carried out under the
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act,
1966, and that BMRCL paid Rs.4,01,44,404/-
as compensation for the acquired land and
building. The Petitioner accepted that amount
and, according to BMRCL, cannot seek further
compensation arising from the acquisition.
23.8. Learned Counsel submits that compensation
was calculated at 200% of the market value,
together with solatium and interest, under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. BMRCL relies on the
amount paid to support its position that no
further compensation is payable and that it
may levy charges for access beyond the free
width permitted under its Way Leave Policy.
23.9. Learned Counsel further relies on BMRCL’s
letter dated 23.12.2024, which states that the
compensation included the demolished building
and that the Petitioner was permitted to
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 124 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
strengthen the remaining floors at its own cost,
without any right to compensation.
QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION AND SCOPE OF
THIS POINT
23.10. The question under this Point is limited to
whether the compensation paid for the acquired
land and demolished structure, by itself, bars
the Petitioner from pursuing a distinct claim for
losses allegedly caused by the acquisition and
the resulting loss of access to the remaining
Schedule Property. This Point does not
determine whether the Petitioner has proved its
entitlement to the amount claimed in
Annexure-F. That issue falls for consideration
under Point (v).
WHETHER THE COMPENSATION PAID BARS A
SEPARATE CLAIM
23.11. BMRCL states that it paid Rs.4,01,44,404/- as
compensation for the acquired land and
building, including the demolished structure,
and relies on its assertion that the award
included 200% of market value, solatium and
interest. The purpose for which compensation
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 125 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
was assessed is material. BMRCL has not shown
that the amount included a specific assessment
of losses arising from the loss of access to the
remaining property, interruption of utility
services or loss of rental income.
23.12. The substantial amount paid does not, by itself,
establish that every consequence of the
acquisition was assessed or compensated. The
acquired land and demolished structure are
distinct from the remaining property and the
impairment of its use. If the loss of access is
established, it concerns the use and utility of
the property left with the Petitioner, rather than
the value of the property acquired.
23.13. The Petitioner’s case is that it formerly had
independent and complete access from the
eastern side facing the main road and lost that
access after the acquisition and construction of
the Metro station. It alleges that the remaining
building was left without effective ingress and
egress. Whether the loss of access caused the
tenant to vacate, whether other circumstances
contributed to the vacancy, and whether any
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 126 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
resulting rental loss is legally recoverable are
matters reserved for Point (v).
23.14. Compensation for acquired land does not itself
provide access to the remaining property. Nor
does it establish, that the loss of use or rental
income was included in the award. BMRCL has
not identified a settlement or release by which
the Petitioner relinquished claims concerning
access, interruption of utilities or loss of
income. On the material placed before this
Court, acceptance of the acquisition
compensation does not, by itself, dispose of
those distinct claims.
23.15. The effect of acquisition on the remaining
property must be considered separately from
the value of the property taken. The public
purpose of the Metro project and the payment
of compensation for the acquired property do
not, by themselves, answer whether the
remaining property was left without effective
access or whether any resulting loss has been
addressed in accordance with law.
23.16. Article 300A of the Constitution is relevant to
the extent that it protects against deprivation
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 127 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
of property except by authority of law. It does
not, by itself, establish an entitlement to every
consequential loss claimed by an owner. It
reinforces, however, that the effect of public
action on private property must be considered
in accordance with law and cannot be treated
as immaterial merely because compensation
has been paid for the property acquired.
STATUTORY COMPENSATION AND THE HEADS OF
LOSS
23.17. BMRCL has referred to both the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, and
the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013. The present Point
does not require the Court to determine the
complete statutory basis of the acquisition or
reopen the acquisition award. It requires the
Court to distinguish the compensation actually
paid from the losses now claimed.
23.18. Section 28 of the 2013 Act is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 128 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
28. Parameters to be considered by Collector
in determination of award. –In determining the
amount of compensation to be awarded for land
acquired under this Act, the Collector shall take into
consideration—
firstly, the market value as determined under
section 26 and the award amount in accordance
with the First and Second Schedules;
secondly, the damage sustained by the person
interested, by reason of the taking of any standing
crops and trees which may be on the land at the
time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person
interested, at the time of the Collector's taking
possession of the land, by reason of severing such
land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the
person interested, at the time of the Collector's
taking possession of the land, by reason of the
acquisition injuriously affecting his other property,
movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his
earnings;
fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land
by the Collector, the person interested is compelled
to change his residence or place of business, the
reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such
change;
sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from
diminution of the profits of the land between the
time of the publication of the declaration under
section 19 and the time of the Collector's taking
possession of the land; and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 129 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
seventhly, any other ground which may be in the interest
of equity, justice and beneficial to the affected families.
23.19. Section 28 identifies matters to be considered
when determining compensation, including
damage caused by severance of the acquired
land from other land and damage caused where
the acquisition injuriously affects other property
or earnings. The provision may therefore be
relevant to the distinction between the value of
the land acquired and consequential loss.
23.20. The amount paid at 200% of market value,
together with solatium and interest, does not
by itself establish that the Petitioner was
compensated for every consequence of the
acquisition. The amount may be relevant to the
acquisition claim, but its magnitude does not
prove that the separate losses now claimed
were included or that the Petitioner agreed to
relinquish any distinct remedy available under
law.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 130 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
RELEVANCE OF THE WAY LEAVE POLICY AND
ACCEPTANCE OF COMPENSATION
23.21. The Way Leave Policy recognises that
acquisition may leave a property without
adequate access and provides a mechanism for
considering access in such circumstances. This
supports the conclusion that access to the
remaining property is a distinct matter
requiring consideration. The Policy’s existence
does not, by itself, establish the Petitioner’s
entitlement to damages or the amount
recoverable.
23.22. The Petitioner’s acceptance of Rs.4,01,44,404/-
is not disputed. However, BMRCL has not
identified any release or settlement showing
that the Petitioner relinquished its separate
claims concerning access, utility services or loss
of rental income. Acceptance of compensation
for the acquired land and building does not,
without more, establish that the Petitioner
agreed to make no further claim for the effect
of the acquisition on the remaining property.
23.23. The Petitioner’s continued access grievance and
the separate proceedings concerning
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 131 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
compensation for part of the acquired extent
are consistent with its maintaining distinct
claims. The finding under this Point rests
principally on the purpose of the compensation
paid and the absence of material showing that
the consequential losses were included in or
settled by that payment.
SEPARATE PROCEEDING CONCERNING 56.25
SQUARE METRES
23.24. The dispute concerning the remaining 56.25
square metres is separate. The Petitioner states
that compensation was paid for 95.75 square
metres out of the 152 square metres acquired
and that the balance was treated as kharab
land. In W.P. No. 4125/2023, this Court
directed KIADB to take steps to issue a
corrigendum including the remaining extent
and to pay compensation. Compliance with
those directions and the amount, if any,
remaining payable are not determined under
this Point. Nothing in this finding alters the
directions in that proceeding.
23.25. The extent for which acquisition compensation
was paid is a separate issue from whether the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 132 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
compensation for the acquired land and
building bars the claim arising from loss of
access to the remaining property. The answer
to the latter question does not depend on the
final outcome of the former.
EFFECT OF THE STATEMENT CONCERNING
STRENGTHENING OF THE BUILDING
23.26. BMRCL’s letter dated 23.12.2024 states that
the Petitioner was permitted to strengthen the
remaining floors at its own cost and without
any right to compensation. That statement
concerns work on the remaining structure. It
does not establish that effective access was
provided or that loss of use and rental income
was included in the acquisition compensation.
No finding is made under this Point concerning
the cost or adequacy of the strengthening
work.
23.27. This Court answers Point No. (iv) by holding
that the compensation paid for the acquired
land and demolished structure does not, by
itself, preclude the Petitioner from pursuing a
distinct claim for losses caused by the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 133 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
acquisition and the resulting loss of effective
access to the remaining Schedule Property.
24. Answer to Point No. (v): Whether the Petitioner
is entitled to the monetary relief sought under
prayer (c), namely, recovery of the amount of
₹11,30,36,834.57 claimed under Annexure-F
dated 07.10.2024 and continuing damages until
the access sought under prayer (b) is provided;
and whether such relief can appropriately be
adjudicated in the present writ proceedings,
having regard to the Respondents’ objections
concerning disputed facts, causation and the
alleged loss of rental income?
24.1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the Schedule Property bearing Municipal No.
28/B, PID No. 57-137-28B, at Sarakki
Industrial Layout, Bannerghatta Road, 3rd
Phase, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru, measures 766.26
square metres and comprises a commercial
building with a super built-up area of 21,839
square feet, extending from the ground floor to
the fourth floor.
24.2. Learned Counsel submits that, before the Metro
project, the property had access from the
eastern side facing the main road. By letter
dated 07.03.2017, BMRCL indicated that 152
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 134 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
square metres on the eastern side would be
acquired through the Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Board (KIADB) for the
Metro station. The Petitioner’s case is that the
acquisition and subsequent construction took
over the former frontage and deprived the
remaining property of effective access.
24.3. Learned Counsel further submits that the
electricity, water and sanitation connections
serving the Schedule Property were
disconnected in 2019 in connection with the
Metro construction. The property had been
leased to M/s GraphX Solution India Pvt. Ltd.
under a registered lease deed dated
01.07.2015, recording monthly rent of
₹12,01,145 and contractual escalation of 15%
every three years. The Petitioner asserts that
the tenant vacated in August 2019 because
effective access and essential services were
unavailable, and that the property has
consequently remained incapable of effective
commercial use.
24.4. Learned Counsel submits that compensation
paid for the acquired land and demolished
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 135 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
structure does not necessarily compensate for
the separate effect on the remaining property.
Of the 152 square metres identified for
acquisition, compensation is said to have been
paid for 95.75 square metres, while the
remaining 56.25 square metres were treated as
kharab land. The issue concerning the
remaining extent is the subject of W.P. No.
4125/2023. The Petitioner submits that the
acquisition compensation issue is distinct from
the loss allegedly caused to the remaining
property by deprivation of access and essential
services.
24.5. Learned Counsel submits that, by request dated
15.04.2024, the Petitioner sought replacement
access from the northern side over land held by
BMRCL, comprising a separate six-metre-wide
entry and a separate six-metre-wide exit. By
letters dated 28.06.2024 and 19.11.2024,
BMRCL offered a combined six-metre passage
subject to upfront way-leave charges and a
ten-year agreement. The Petitioner disputes
those conditions because the need for
replacement access arose from the Metro
project.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 136 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
24.6. Learned Counsel relies on the registered lease
deed as a relevant basis for assessing rental
loss. By legal notice dated 07.10.2024, the
Petitioner claimed ₹11,30,36,834.57 under
Annexure-F and also sought continuing
compensation until effective access and
essential services were provided or restored.
24.7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that access and utility lines over land acquired
for the Metro project are governed by BMRCL’s
Way Leave Policy. BMRCL relies on the Policy
provisions concerning permitted widths,
charges and licence conditions, and on its offers
of a combined six-metre passage subject to the
terms set out in its letters dated 28.06.2024
and 19.11.2024.
24.8. Learned Counsel submits that, by letter dated
23.12.2024, BMRCL stated that pipes passing
through the acquired portion had been closed
during construction because the property was
vacant, and that separate utility connections
could be obtained. BMRCL disputes
responsibility for the alleged loss of rental
income and contests the dates, circumstances
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 137 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
and causal connection relied upon by the
Petitioner.
24.9. Learned Counsel for the Respondents further
submits that the claim raises disputed
questions concerning the acquisition award, the
date and responsibility for the utility
disconnections, the date and reason for the
tenant’s departure, the rent payable from time
to time, the period of any loss, mitigation and
the computation of damages. BMRCL contends
that those issues require evidence and should
be determined in a civil suit.
24.10. The issues for determination are:
24.10.1. whether payment of compensation for
the acquired portion, by itself, bars a
separate claim for consequential loss
allegedly suffered by the remaining
property;
24.10.2. which aspects of the dispute can be
determined in these writ proceedings;
and
24.10.3. whether the precise amount and period
of any recoverable rental loss should be
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 138 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
left to a competent civil court for
determination on evidence.
24.11. The Court has considered the claim in the
context of its findings under Point Nos. (ii), (iii)
and (iv). The issues must be kept distinct. The
legality of BMRCL’s approach to replacement
access and utility services is one matter.
Whether the acquisition award included
compensation for the particular consequential
loss now alleged is another. Whether, for what
period and in what amount the Petitioner in fact
suffered recoverable rental loss attributable to
the acts or omissions complained of is a
further, evidentiary question.
24.12. The findings under Point Nos. (ii) and (iii)
determine the legal position governing
replacement access and utility connections in
the circumstances of this case. The identified
provisions of the Way Leave Policy cannot be
relied upon to impose the impugned charges or
time-limited conditions on an owner whose
former access was lost through BMRCL’s
acquisition or construction, and BMRCL is
required to provide the replacement access and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 139 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
utility arrangements directed in this judgment.
Those findings and directions remain operative
irrespective of the forum in which the precise
monetary loss is assessed.
24.13. The Court rejects BMRCL’s broad proposition
that payment of compensation for the acquired
land and demolished structure, by itself,
necessarily bars a separate claim arising from
the effect of the acquisition and Metro works on
the remaining property. The acquired land and
the remaining property are distinct subjects of
potential injury. The fact that compensation
was paid for the former does not, without
examination of the award and its component
heads, establish that loss of access, severance,
injurious affection, loss of earnings or rental
loss concerning the remaining property was
also assessed and compensated.
24.14. Section 28 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and
23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, illustrate
the legal distinction between the value of the
land acquired and certain consequential injuries
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 140 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
to other property or earnings. The Court does
not decide in these writ proceedings which
statutory regime governs the acquisition or
whether a particular head was payable under
that regime. The relevant factual question is
what the acquisition award actually assessed
and paid. That question must be answered by
examining the complete award, valuation
materials, payment records and related
proceedings.
24.15. The registered lease deed is relevant evidence
of the parties’ contractual arrangement and
may provide an important measure when
assessing loss. It does not, by itself, prove that
rent at the stated rate was payable or received
throughout every month claimed; that the
tenant vacated for the reason alleged; that the
premises could not otherwise have been let; or
that all loss during the period was caused by
BMRCL. Those matters must be considered with
the tenancy records, termination and handover
documents, rent-payment evidence, utility
records, evidence concerning access, and any
attempts to re-let the property.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 141 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
24.16. The precise date on which each utility service
was disconnected must be established from the
relevant records. The date on which the tenant
vacated, the reason for its departure and the
period for which rent would otherwise have
been payable must likewise be proved. The rent
applicable from time to time must be calculated
by reference to the complete lease deed,
including its escalation provisions and any
relevant variation, termination, rent-free
period, credit or other adjustment. These
matters bear directly on causation, the period
of loss and the amount, if any, legally
recoverable.
24.17. The same applies to the acquisition-
compensation issue. Whether the award
included compensation for severance, injurious
affection, loss of earnings, rental loss or any
overlapping head cannot safely be determined
by a general assertion from either side. The
award and supporting valuation record must be
examined. If any payment is shown to cover
the identical loss for the identical period, it
must be accounted for to prevent double
recovery. If no such overlap is established, the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 142 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
mere payment of acquisition compensation
cannot defeat a distinct claim.
24.18. The Court is satisfied that the Petitioner has
raised a substantial grievance concerning the
consequences of a public infrastructure project
and BMRCL’s handling of the resulting access
and utility problem. The record warrants the
findings elsewhere in this judgment concerning
BMRCL’s application of the Way Leave Policy,
the need for effective replacement access and
the obligation to address the continuing
impairment of the remaining property. BMRCL’s
conduct, as analysed under Point No. (vi),
merits the Court’s express disapproval for the
reasons recorded there.
24.19. However, the existence of a public-law wrong
or the establishment of the Petitioner’s right to
effective access does not permit the Court to
presume every element of the pleaded
monetary claim. Article 226 permits
consequential relief where appropriate, but it
does not require the Court to conduct a full civil
trial within writ proceedings. Where damages
depend on contested evidence about the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 143 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
contents of an acquisition award, dates of
disconnection, the tenant’s departure, the rent
payable over time, mitigation, causation and
the extent of any overlap, a trial is the
appropriate means of resolving those issues.
24.20. The Court therefore distinguishes the matters
that can properly be decided in these
proceedings from those that cannot. This Court
can determine the legality of the impugned
Policy provisions as applied to the Petitioner,
the Petitioner’s entitlement to the replacement
access and utility-related relief directed under
Point No. (iii), and the legal proposition that
payment for the acquired portion does not
automatically extinguish a distinct claim for
consequential loss to the remaining property. It
can also record its disapproval of BMRCL’s
handling of the grievance, award costs where
justified, and issue directions governing future
cases.
24.21. This Court cannot, on the present record and
without a trial, finally determine the precise
commencement date of rental loss, the date on
which the tenant vacated, whether the tenant
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 144 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
left for the reasons alleged, the rent legally
payable in each month, the extent to which the
property could have been re-let, the effect of
intervening circumstances, the contents and
effect of the acquisition award, or the precise
amount of recoverable loss. Those questions
require production and testing of evidence,
including cross-examination where necessary.
24.22. The Court does not accept BMRCL’s submission
insofar as it seeks to use the existence of
disputed facts to defeat the Petitioner’s public-
law challenge or the relief concerning access
and utility services. Nor does the Court accept
that payment of acquisition compensation
automatically bars the Petitioner from pursuing
a separate claim. The proper consequence of
the factual disputes is that the precise
monetary claim must be left to a competent
civil court, rather than being quantified finally
in these writ proceedings.
24.23. The Petitioner shall accordingly have liberty to
institute an appropriate civil suit before the
competent court for recovery of rental loss and
other consequential damages, if so advised and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 145 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
in accordance with law. The civil court shall
determine, on the evidence adduced by the
parties, whether and to what extent the
Petitioner suffered loss attributable to BMRCL’s
acts or omissions; the relevant period of loss;
the effect of the acquisition award and
compensation already paid; the rental terms
and escalation applicable from time to time;
mitigation and other relevant circumstances;
interest thereon, and the final amount, if any,
payable. The Petitioner though shall be entitled
to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 for the time spent in prosecuting this
writ petition. The loss complained of is a
continuing cause of action, which shall be
treated as continuing until the access is made
available and the water, electricity and
sewerage facilities are restored.
24.24. For that purpose, the Petitioner may rely on the
registered lease deed dated 01.07.2015,
Annexure-F dated 07.10.2024 or any other
document that would reflect the rentals that
the Petitioner would have secured, which it has
now lost out on, the acquisition award and
payment records, utility and construction
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 146 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
records, tenancy and handover documents,
correspondence, and such other admissible
evidence as may be available. BMRCL shall be
at liberty to raise all legally available defences
concerning causation, proof, quantum,
mitigation and overlap, except that the general
proposition that acquisition compensation
automatically bars a distinct consequential-loss
claim stands rejected for the reasons stated
above. All questions requiring evidence shall be
decided by the trial court independently in
accordance with law.
24.25. The trial court shall not treat the observations
in this judgment concerning the legal distinction
between acquisition compensation and
consequential loss as a finding that the
Petitioner has already proved the precise
amount claimed; the observation is only limited
to the fact that the Petitioner would be entitled
to losses caused by the deprivation of access,
in addition to the acquisition compensation, the
existence and extent of such losses not having
been determined or proved in these
proceedings. Equally, the Petitioner shall not be
required to establish the legal validity of the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 147 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
Policy provisions afresh as determined in this
judgment, or the entitlement to the
replacement access and utility-related
directions granted herein. The trial court shall
determine the factual issues and monetary
consequences on the evidence before it,
consistently with the binding findings of this
Court.
24.26. The Court expresses no final view on whether
the entire sum of ₹11,30,36,834.57 claimed
under Annexure-F is recoverable, nor on the
exact amount of continuing or other
consequential damages. No monetary decree
for that sum is passed in these writ
proceedings. This observation is made to
ensure that the claim is adjudicated on
complete evidence and that BMRCL has a fair
opportunity to contest the factual basis and
calculation.
24.27. Accordingly, Point No. (v) is answered partly in
favour of the Petitioner. BMRCL’s contention
that payment of compensation for the acquired
portion, without examination of the award and
the relevant heads of compensation,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 148 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
automatically defeats the claim for
consequential loss is rejected. The precise claim
for rental-based compensation and other
damages is reserved for determination by a
competent civil court on evidence. The findings
and directions under Point Nos. (ii), (iii) and
(iv) remain unaffected.
25. Answer to Point No. (vi): What order?
BMRCL’S STAND AND THE APPLICATION OF ITS
OWN POLICY
25.1. The Petitioner contends that BMRCL treated its
Way Leave Policy as rigid, asserted that it was
bound by the Policy, and failed to consider the
particular circumstances of the Petitioner’s
property. The Court records the following
further observations.
25.2. The Policy itself provided mechanisms for
considering cases on their individual merits.
Clause 2 required consideration of the
circumstances of each case; Clause 7
contemplated a decision on the merits after site
inspection; and Clause 12 provided for a
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 149 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
decision, with the approval of the Managing
Director, where the Policy did not cover the
case.
25.3. The present case concerned a property whose
eastern frontage had been acquired for the
Metro project, leaving the remaining
commercial building without any access. The
need for a permanent replacement route and
associated utility connections called for a
reasoned, site-specific assessment. Although a
joint inspection was later conducted and points
were marked for utility lines, the separate six-
metre-wide ingress and egress sought by the
Petitioner was not provided and no reasons are
placed on record, except to contend that it
cannot be provided. BMRCL cannot justify its
stand merely by referring to standard widths
and charges prescribed by the Policy when the
Policy itself contemplated consideration of
individual circumstances.
25.4. BMRCL’s positions were also inconsistent. It
relied on the Policy to contend that access was
governed by its discretion and prescribed
licence conditions, while its own Policy
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 150 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
recognised the special position of properties left
without access. It initially maintained that the
Policy did not cover the provision of utility lines,
yet subsequently identified points at which
those lines could be laid. It asserted that the
relevant land was required for Metro
infrastructure, but also offered access over that
land, though on conditions disputed by the
Petitioner.
25.5. Its proposals shifted from a combined six-
metre-wide passage to an arrangement
involving 3.5 metres free of charge and a
further five metres on payment. Neither
proposal addressed the Petitioner’s distinct
request for separate six-metre-wide entry and
exit passages. Further, BMRCL relied on an
assurance that access would not be cancelled if
charges were paid, while maintaining that its
Policy’s power of discontinuance must remain
available. These positions reveal the absence of
a consistent and reasoned approach to the
particular problem before it. BMRCL also did not
adequately address the applicable building bye-
laws and fire-safety requirements relied upon
by the Petitioner.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 151 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
25.6. BMRCL’s stand placed the practical and financial
burden of resolving the access problem on the
Petitioner, although the need for replacement
access arose from the Metro project. The
Petitioner’s refusal to accept terms requiring
advance payment and a time-limited
agreement cannot, in the circumstances found
under Point Nos. (ii) and (iii), be treated as a
sufficient answer to the failure to provide
effective replacement access.
RELIANCE ON ACQUISITION COMPENSATION TO
ANSWER THE DISTINCT LOSS OF ACCESS
25.7. A further feature of BMRCL’s stand is its
reliance on compensation paid for the acquired
land and demolished structure as though that
payment necessarily answered the grievance
concerning access to the remaining property.
As explained under Point No. (iv), these are
distinct matters. Compensation for the land and
building acquired does not, by itself, establish
that the effect on the remaining property,
including deprivation of effective access and
loss of use, was assessed and compensated.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 152 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
25.8. BMRCL did not identify a specific assessment
showing that the compensation already paid
included the separate loss now in issue. Nor did
it show that the Petitioner had settled or
relinquished the distinct claim arising from the
effect of the acquisition on the remaining
property. The Court does not reopen the
adequacy of compensation for the property
acquired. The criticism is that BMRCL relied on
that payment as a complete answer to a
different grievance without addressing whether
the two matters were in fact assessed
separately.
INCONSISTENT POSITION CONCERNING THE
TENANT AND THE VACANCY OF THE PROPERTY
25.9. BMRCL’s letter dated 23.12.2024 presents an
inconsistency requiring comment. BMRCL
disputed the Petitioner’s assertion concerning
the tenant’s departure, while also stating that
the property was vacant and that the pipes had
been closed because there was no need to
restore services to a vacant property. Those
positions are difficult to reconcile. The
inconsistency is relevant to the adequacy of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 153 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
BMRCL’s response to the grievance, although it
does not, without trial, conclusively establish
the date or reason for the tenant’s departure or
the precise amount of rental loss.
25.10. The registered lease deed dated 01.07.2015
predates the present dispute and records the
agreed rent and escalation. BMRCL’s
correspondence did not provide a consistent or
reasoned answer to the Petitioner’s case that
the interruption of access and essential services
had impaired the use of the property. This
inconsistency is relevant to the Court’s
assessment of BMRCL’s handling of the
grievance. The precise tenancy facts and their
monetary consequences remain open for
determination on evidence in the civil suit.
RELIANCE ON A CIVIL SUIT FOR AN EASEMENT
OF NECESSITY
25.11. BMRCL also submitted that, if the Petitioner
required more access than the Policy allowed, it
should institute a civil suit for an easement of
necessity and that this Court should not
intervene in writ proceedings. However,
BMRCL’s own Policy recognises the need to
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 154 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
consider access where acquisition leaves a
property without effective access. BMRCL
cannot rely on the Policy framework while
declining to address the consequences of its
acquisition and construction in a manner
consistent with that framework.
25.12. The availability of a civil remedy is relevant to
the limits of relief that may be granted in writ
proceedings. It does not remove this Court’s
jurisdiction to examine whether BMRCL applied
its Policy lawfully and fairly. The Court has
considered the maintainability objection
separately and rejected it insofar as it concerns
the public-law challenge and the prayers for
replacement access and utility-related relief.
The monetary claim, by contrast, involves
disputed facts requiring trial and is therefore
left open to the competent civil court.
THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF BMRCL’S CONDUCT
25.13. The above features must be viewed together
with the findings under Point Nos. (ii), (iii) and
(iv). The former frontage and access were lost
in connection with the Metro project. The
grievance concerning access and utility
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 155 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
arrangements remained unresolved despite the
Petitioner’s representations and the later joint
inspection. When the Petitioner sought
replacement access, BMRCL’s proposals were
conditional and did not address the distinct
request for separate entry and exit passages.
BMRCL did not produce a reasoned, site-specific
assessment explaining why the requested
arrangement could not be accommodated, and
continued to rely on Policy conditions found
unenforceable as applied to the Petitioner.
25.14. The Court recognises the public importance of
the Metro project and BMRCL’s responsibility to
protect its land, infrastructure, safety and
operations. The relief granted does not require
alteration of the Metro station, return of
acquired land or surrender of BMRCL’s control
over its property. It requires workable
replacement access and routes for utility lines,
subject to reasonable safeguards consistent
with this order. No specific operational or safety
requirement has been established on the
material before the Court that justifies leaving
the remaining property without effective access
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 156 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
or making replacement access dependent on
the impugned charges.
25.15. A public authority is expected to deal fairly,
consistently and proactively with persons
affected by its projects. Its Policy should assist
it in identifying and resolving the consequences
of acquisition, not become a reason to avoid
doing so. BMRCL’s failure to make effective use
of the case-specific mechanisms in its Policy, its
inconsistent positions, and its insistence that
the Petitioner should bear the burden of
securing replacement access materially
contributed to the continuation of the dispute.
DISAPPROVAL OF BMRCL’S CONDUCT AND
AWARD OF COSTS
25.16. The Court’s disapproval is not based merely on
the fact that BMRCL has failed in its defence. A
public authority is entitled to contest a claim
and protect its property and legitimate
operational interests. This case, however,
involves more than an ordinary disagreement
over the interpretation of a policy. The
cumulative record shows that BMRCL failed to
address a foreseeable consequence of its
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 157 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
acquisition, did not provide an effective solution
for a prolonged period, relied on compensation
for the acquired land as a complete answer to a
distinct grievance, adopted inconsistent
positions concerning the tenancy and vacancy
of the premises, and sought to place the
burden of resolving the resulting access
problem on the Petitioner.
25.17. The Petitioner was compelled to approach this
Court to secure relief concerning access and
essential services necessary for the effective
use of the remaining commercial property. The
prolonged failure to provide a reasoned
resolution, despite the mechanisms available
under BMRCL’s own Policy, materially added to
the burden of the proceedings. The Court
considers that a declaration and directions for
access should be accompanied by an award of
costs reflecting its disapproval of the manner in
which BMRCL dealt with the grievance.
25.18. In these circumstances, an award of costs is
justified. The amount must reflect the
prolonged and avoidable nature of the dispute,
the need for the Petitioner to institute and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 158 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
prosecute these proceedings to secure effective
relief, and the failure of a public authority with
the requisite technical and administrative
capacity to resolve the problem through a fair
and lawful application of its own Policy. The
award is intended to mark the Court’s
disapproval of that conduct and to meet, in
part, the burden of litigation imposed on the
Petitioner. It is distinct from any rental loss or
consequential damages that may be established
in the civil suit.
25.19. Having regard to the cumulative circumstances,
this Court directs Respondent No. 1, BMRCL, to
pay costs of ₹10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs
only) to the Petitioner. The costs shall be paid
within eight weeks from the date of this order.
CLARIFICATION
25.20. The above observations are confined to
BMRCL’s handling of the Petitioner’s request
and the positions taken in these proceedings.
They do not question the public purpose of the
Metro project or BMRCL’s authority to protect
its property and operations by lawful means.
The criticism concerns the failure to address
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 159 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
fairly and consistently the consequences of the
project for the remaining Schedule Property,
and the resulting need for judicial intervention.
BEFORE PARTING: DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE
CASES
25.21. Before parting, this Court considers it
necessary to set out directions for BMRCL to
follow in future cases involving acquisition of
private land for Metro projects, particularly
where the acquisition or construction may
affect access to or the ordinary use of the
remaining property. The present case
demonstrates that the consequences of
acquisition cannot be assessed by considering
only the extent of land taken over. The effect
on the remaining property must also receive
due attention.
25.22. Whenever BMRCL proposes to acquire land or
undertake construction that may affect access
to, or the ordinary use of, the remaining
property, it shall identify the likely
consequences for that property at the planning
and implementation stages. The assessment
shall, as relevant to the site, consider existing
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 160 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
ingress and egress, access for vehicles and
emergency services, the availability of water,
electricity and sanitation, and any other
essential facility that may be affected by the
proposed works.
25.23. Where the proposed acquisition or construction
is likely to leave the remaining property without
access or effective access or essential services,
BMRCL shall, as far as practicable, inspect the
site, consult the affected owner and consider a
workable arrangement before the existing
access or services are disrupted. The
assessment and proposed solution shall be
recorded in writing. The purpose is to identify
and address the consequences for the
remaining property in a timely manner, rather
than leave the owner to seek a remedy after
deprivation has occurred.
25.24. While considering a request for replacement
access, BMRCL shall distinguish between a
request for additional or more convenient
access and a request made necessary because
the original access or frontage has been lost
owing to its acquisition or construction
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 161 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
activities. Such a request shall not be rejected
merely by referring to standard widths,
charging slabs or licence conditions under the
Way Leave Policy. BMRCL shall consider actual
site conditions, the use and configuration of the
remaining property, the availability of
alternative access, relevant safety and
operational requirements, applicable building
bye-laws, the National Building Code, Fire and
Emergency Services requirements and other
applicable regulatory requirements. The
decision shall state reasons for accepting or
rejecting the requested arrangement.
25.25. BMRCL shall give due effect to the provisions of
its Way Leave Policy that require consideration
of individual circumstances, site inspection and
a decision on the merits, including the
procedure for cases not specifically covered by
the Policy. The Policy shall be applied as a
framework for fair decision-making and not as
a reason to avoid examining the consequences
of BMRCL’s own acquisition or construction. The
provisions declared invalid or unenforceable in
this judgment shall not be applied to owners
whose original access or frontage has been lost
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 162 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
because of BMRCL’s acquisition for the Metro
project.
25.26. Where utility routes are likely to be affected,
BMRCL shall coordinate, as necessary, with the
relevant service providers and the affected
owner to identify a workable arrangement for
continuity or restoration of essential services at
the earliest, without any delay. Where
replacement utility routes are required over
land held by BMRCL, the proposed alignment,
responsibilities for installation and
maintenance, and applicable service-provider
charges shall be clearly communicated.
Administrative or contractual conditions shall
not be imposed in a manner that defeats the
practical provision of essential services.
25.27. If BMRCL considers that effective replacement
access cannot reasonably or lawfully be
provided, it shall communicate its reasons to
the affected owner and consider, in accordance
with applicable law, whether acquisition of the
remaining property or another lawful solution is
appropriate. An owner whose property has
been left without access or effective access
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 163 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
shall not be kept indefinitely in uncertainty
while the authority neither provides a workable
solution nor takes a reasoned decision on the
available alternatives.
25.28. BMRCL shall ensure that decisions concerning
replacement access and essential services are
communicated within a reasonable time,
supported by recorded reasons, and identify the
steps required for implementation. Any genuine
technical or operational restriction relied upon
shall be identified with sufficient clarity to
permit the affected owner to understand the
basis of the decision and, where appropriate,
challenge it in accordance with law.
25.29. The Managing Director of BMRCL shall issue
appropriate internal instructions to the
concerned officers to ensure compliance with
these directions and the findings in this
judgment. The instructions shall make clear
that the consequences of acquisition for the
remaining property must be considered at the
planning and implementation stages; requests
for replacement access must receive individual
consideration; and the provisions declared
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 164 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
invalid or unenforceable in this judgment must
not be applied to the class of owners covered
by the declaration. The instructions shall be
issued within four weeks from the date of this
order.
25.30. These directions do not prevent BMRCL from
acquiring land for a lawful public purpose,
protecting its property or imposing reasonable
measures necessary for Metro safety, security
and operations. They require that such powers
be exercised fairly, consistently and in
accordance with law, with due regard to the
consequences for the remaining property of
persons affected by acquisition. The public
purpose of the Metro project and the rights of
affected owners must be addressed together;
the former does not justify ignoring the latter.
25.31. In view of the reasons and the answers given
above, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed in part , in terms
of the declarations and directions set out below.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 165 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
(ii) It is declared that the following provisions of
the Way Leave Policy of BMRCL bearing No.
BMRCL/LAQ/WLP/5132/2022-23 dated
07.07.2022 (Annexure-C) are unconstitutional,
invalid and unenforceable as against the
Petitioner and any owner of land whose direct
access or frontage was lost because of
acquisition by BMRCL for the Metro project:
a. the provision in Clause 3 permitting
BMRCL to discontinue a way-leave facility
at any time without notice, together with
provisions excluding compensation, refund
or alternative access upon such
discontinuance; and
b. the charging provisions in Clause 4 for
passages wider than 3.5 metres, namely
rows 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d), and rows 2(a)
and 2(b) relating to electricity lines and
water or sewage pipelines serving the
remaining property, read with Note (iii),
Clause 9 and the requirements for ten
years’ upfront payment and revision or
renewal of charges by reference to
prevailing guidance value.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 166 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
c. This declaration is confined to the
provisions identified above and the class
of owners described. The remainder of the
Way Leave Policy is not invalidated.
BMRCL may impose lawful and reasonable
safeguards for the protection of its
property, Metro safety, security and
operations, subject to this order.
(iii) A writ of mandamus is issued to Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3, directing them as follows:
a. within four weeks from the date of this
order, BMRCL shall depute officers to
mark on the ground, after reasonable
notice to the Petitioner and jointly with
the Petitioner’s representative, an ingress
six metres wide and a separate egress six
metres wide on the northern side of the
Schedule Property over the adjoining land
held by BMRCL. Whether separate ingress
and egress can be provided shall be
determined, within the same period, by a
committee to be constituted by the
Managing Director of BMRCL comprising
concerned officers having the requisite
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 167 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
technical expertise, after notice to the
Petitioner and having regard to the
building bye-laws, zonal regulations, fire
force requirements and the nature of the
construction; only if the committee
records in writing, with reasons, that
separate ingress and egress cannot be
provided, BMRCL shall mark and provide
instead a single access of at least 40 feet
(about 12.2 metres) for common ingress
and egress. If the Petitioner does not
attend after notice, BMRCL may mark the
access in the Petitioner’s absence, record
the action taken and provide a copy to the
Petitioner;
b. Within eight weeks from the date of this
order, BMRCL shall provide and hand over
to the Petitioner, on a permanent basis,
free of cost and without an agreement for
a fixed term, the ingress and egress so
marked. The access shall not be
withdrawn, curtailed, obstructed or made
subject to renewal or payment of way-
leave charges at BMRCL’s discretion;
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 168 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
c. BMRCL shall permit the Petitioner to
install and maintain water, electricity and
sewerage lines to the Schedule Property
over the land held by BMRCL on the
northern side, at the points marked at the
joint inspection of 28.03.2025 (Annexure-
R2), or, where those points cannot be
used because of the marking of the strips,
at other points marked by BMRCL for that
purpose, without way-leave charges. The
Petitioner shall bear the cost of laying and
maintaining the lines and charges payable
to service providers; and
d. The access is for the Petitioner and
persons lawfully using the Schedule
Property. It does not create a public road
or general right of access for third parties.
BMRCL may adopt reasonable measures
to protect Metro safety, security and
operations, provided such measures do
not narrow, obstruct or render ineffective
the access directed above.
(iv) It is declared that payment of compensation for
the land acquired and structure demolished
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 169 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
does not, by itself, bar a distinct claim for
consequential loss suffered by the remaining
property. Whether the acquisition award
included compensation for loss of access,
severance, injurious affection, loss of earnings,
rental loss or any overlapping head shall be
determined by the competent civil court upon
examination of the complete award, valuation
materials and payment records. Any proven
overlap shall be accounted for to prevent
double recovery.
(v) No monetary decree is passed in these writ
proceedings in respect of the claim for
₹11,30,36,834.57 made under Annexure-F
dated 07.10.2024, or for continuing rental loss
or other consequential damages. The Petitioner
is at liberty to institute an appropriate civil suit
before the competent court, if so advised and in
accordance with law. Though the Petitioner
shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 for the time spent in
these proceedings, the cause of action shall be
treated as continuing until the access is made
available and the water, electricity and
sewerage facilities are restored.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 170 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
(vi) In any suit instituted by the Petitioner, the
competent civil court shall determine on the
evidence:
a. the date or dates of disconnection of
electricity, water and sanitation services
and whether the disconnections were
attributable to the Metro works or BMRCL;
b. the date and reason for the tenant’s
vacation;
c. the rent legally payable from time to time
under the registered lease deed dated
01.07.2015, including contractual
escalation and any relevant adjustment;
d. whether and to what extent the Petitioner
suffered rental loss or other recoverable
damage caused by BMRCL’s acts or
omissions;
e. the period of any recoverable loss and the
effect of any intervening cause or
mitigation;
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 171 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
f. the heads of compensation actually
included in the acquisition award and any
overlap with the claim;
g. interest;
h. All such factual and monetary issues are
left open for determination at trial.
(vii) The Petitioner may rely in the civil suit on the
registered lease deed dated 01.07.2015,
Annexure-F dated 07.10.2024, the acquisition
award and payment records, utility and
construction records, tenancy and handover
documents, correspondence, and any other
admissible evidence. BMRCL shall be at liberty
to raise all legally available defences concerning
causation, proof, quantum, mitigation and
overlap, subject to the findings of law recorded
in this judgment. The trial court shall
independently assess the evidence and shall not
treat this judgment as having established the
precise amount of rental loss.
(viii) If BMRCL elects not to provide the replacement
access directed under clause (iii), or maintains
that such access cannot lawfully or feasibly be
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 172 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
provided, it shall take appropriate steps under
applicable law to acquire the balance property.
Any acquisition, valuation and payment of
compensation shall follow the applicable
statutory procedure. The current value of the
balance property and any acquisition
compensation are not determined in these writ
proceedings. Merely deciding to initiate
acquisition proceedings or taking preliminary
steps shall not satisfy the direction to provide
effective access or, by itself, determine any
monetary claim reserved for civil trial.
Acquisition of the balance property shall not
negate the claim of the Petitioner for
compensation for rental loss already incurred or
continuing, and other consequential damages.
(ix) BMRCL shall pay the Petitioner costs of
₹10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) within
eight weeks from the date of this order. These
costs are distinct from, and shall not be treated
as a determination of, the rental loss or
consequential damages reserved for civil trial.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 173 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
(x) The stand of BMRCL, as recorded in this order,
is deprecated for the reasons set out under
Point No. (vi).
(xi) BMRCL shall file a memo of compliance in this
Court, with a copy to the Petitioner, within two
weeks after expiry of the period for handing
over the ingress and egress. The memo shall
state the dates on which the access was
marked and handed over and the steps taken
to facilitate the utility lines.
(xii) Either side may apply to this Court for
directions if a genuine difficulty arises in
carrying out the directions concerning access or
utility lines, including a difficulty concerning the
land over which the strips are to be marked or
their length along the boundary. This liberty
does not authorise reopening of the monetary
issues reserved for civil trial.
(xiii) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of. Any interim order in force stands
merged in this order.
(xiv) Though the writ petition is disposed of by this
order, relist the matter on 22.01.2027 for the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 174 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60922
WP No. 5093 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010097032025
Managing Director of BMRCL to report
compliance.
This Court has been assisted by Ms. Harshada R.B., Law
Clerk, in reviewing this judgment.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:40, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
PRS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45