Mandatory land relinquishment requirements do not apply to single-plot developments.

The petitioner sought approval for development of a single plot comprising 3 guntas in Sy. No. 20/*/A and 16 guntas in Sy. No. 20/B/2, measuring 19 guntas in total.

The Urban Planning Authority granted technical approval on 22 November 2024, subject to Condition No. 5, which required 729.52 sq. m. (37.95%) of the area to be relinquished, without compensation, for a road.

The petitioner challenged that condition under Articles 226 and 227, contending that the relinquishment requirement did not apply to single-plot development.

The State relied on a notification dated 7 May 2025 concerning development of land outside Local Planning Areas.

1. Whether Condition No. 5, requiring relinquishment of 37.95% of the land, could be imposed for the petitioner’s single-plot development under Section 32(5).

2. Whether the notification dated 7 May 2025 could sustain the impugned condition, which was imposed in 2024.

The Court considered Section 32(5) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and relied on three coordinate-Bench decisions: Dr. Arun Kumar B.C. v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2022 KAR 1461; Smt. Shanthamma v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 30983/2024 (9 June 2025); and Sri. Sikandar v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 677/2022 (14 February 2024).

Those decisions had consistently held that the relinquishment requirement under Section 32(5) did not apply to single-plot development.

The Court also considered the 2025 notification, but noted that it post-dated the impugned order and that its applicability to this case was unclear.

The impugned condition formed part of the 2024 technical approval and required relinquishment of 37.95% of the plot.

Because the petitioner’s proposal concerned a single plot, the Court applied the consistent coordinate-Bench view that Section 32(5) did not authorise such a requirement for single-plot development.

The State could not rely on the 2025 notification to uphold the condition: it was issued after the approval, and its application to the petitioner’s case was not established.