Master Plan silence does not divest State ownership of storm water drains or permit encroachment over public utilities.

The petitioners (an apartment association, a developer, and a residents' welfare association) challenged notices issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) in 2014 and 2019 alleging encroachment upon storm water drains (Rajakaluves)

The petitioners contended that their building plans and layouts were sanctioned by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and that the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) 1995 did not reflect any drains passing through their properties

Conversely, the BBMP contended that village maps and survey reports identified clear encroachments—approximately 12 guntas in Sy. No. 7 and 18 guntas in Sy. No. 11—which obstructed water flow to the Subramanyapura Lake

During the pendency of the writ, the State Government constituted an Expert Committee which confirmed that the petitioners had either blocked or diverted essential drains, rendering the existing drainage capacity insufficient for the catchment area

1. Whether a sanctioned building plan or a Master Plan that fails to show a storm water drain can divest the State of its ownership over 'B' Kharab land dedicated to public utilities

2. Whether the BBMP is legally authorized to demolish constructions put up over storm water drains despite the issuance of occupancy certificates by the planning authority

The court primarily applied Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Section 174 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, which establish that all public roads, streets, and watercourses (including 'B' Kharab land) vest absolutely in the State and Municipal Corporation respectively

The court distinguished the precedent in *Sobha Developers Limited v. BBMP (2012)*, noting that a Master Plan prepared under Section 12 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 is a vision document regulated by the Planning Authority and cannot override revenue records or village maps that establish the physical existence of water bodies

It further relied on *Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024)* regarding the accountability of officials in implementing planned projects and protecting the environment

The court reasoned that 'B' Kharab land is reserved for public utility and its title cannot be extinguished by the mere omission of a drain in a Master Plan or building sanction

It observed that the petitioner in WP 40299/2014 admittedly attempted to regularize Kharab land and maintained a partial internal drain, proving knowledge of the watercourse

The court rejected the petitioners' reliance on the 1995 CDP, clarifying that Master Plans are individual-centric and often fail to reflect the foundational topography found in village maps, which remains the "beacon" for revenue administration

Applying the Expert Committee’s hydrological report, the court found that the petitioners’ obstruction of "Drain-II" and the reduction of other drain sections created significant risks of flooding and foundational damage in the locality

Collusion between developers and planning officials to "efface" water bodies from development plans was cited as a basis for not allowing sanctioned plans to shield illegal encroachments

It held that public interest in preventing urban flooding outweighs the interests of the residents who occupied the encroached land

The court directed the BBMP to re-inspect the drains on 28.02.2026

The petitioners were granted a 15-day window from the inspection date to suggest and implement a viable alternative course for the drains; failing which, the BBMP is mandated to demolish the constructions and restore the storm water drains to the dimensions specified by the Expert Committee