BDA Must Give Landowner 22,452 Sq Ft In Developed Sites Under Deal For Her 2 Acres Used For Road Without Acquisition: Karnataka HC

The BDA used 2 acres and 5 guntas belonging to Mary Jayashree for road formation without acquisition.

Under a relinquishment deed dated 23 February 2016, she surrendered the land, with the deed recording her right to claim the remaining 50% and the BDA’s agreement to allot an alternative site.

The parties’ arrangement was for 45,248 sq. ft. of developed sites; the BDA allotted 22,796 sq. ft. between 2017 and 2018, but later declined to allot the balance, citing a change in government policy.

The Single Judge directed the BDA to allot the balance 22,452 sq. ft. The BDA appealed, while Jayashree brought contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance.

Whether the relinquishment deed and the parties’ arrangement entitled Jayashree to the balance 22,452 sq. ft. of developed sites, notwithstanding the BDA’s subsequent reliance on a revised policy.

Whether the Single Judge’s direction should be set aside in light of the BDA’s arguments concerning the extent of developed land and alleged unjust enrichment, and the precedent in W.A. No. 697 of 2018.

The Court considered the relinquishment deed and the parties’ agreement as the basis of the claim, and applied the principle of promissory estoppel, concluding that the BDA’s acceptance of the relinquished land on the stated terms gave rise to an enforceable claim by Jayashree.

It distinguished W.A. No. 697 of 2018, which concerned a claim for sites equivalent to 100% of land used and did not involve a relinquishment deed executed on the specific understanding that 50% would be allotted as developed sites.

Article 215 of the Constitution and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, were invoked in the contempt petition; the judgment did not set out a separate analysis of those provisions.

The Court read the deed as recording the relinquishment of the land and the BDA’s undertaking to allot an alternative site, and found no evidence of a different agreement between the parties.

It calculated that 50% of the 2 acres and 5 guntas relinquished was approximately 46,282.5 sq. ft., and noted that the full extent had been used for road formation rather than for a layout.

Since only 22,796 sq. ft. had been allotted, the balance sought was 22,452 sq. ft. The Court rejected the BDA’s reliance on its revised policy and its unjust-enrichment argument, and held that the earlier precedent was distinguishable because it lacked the specific deed-based undertaking present here.

The BDA was ordered to allot 22,452 sq. ft. of developed sites within three months of receiving the judgment.

The contempt case was closed, with the Commissioner directed to comply within the same period and liberty reserved to Jayashree to reopen the case if the direction was not obeyed.