Metro Project Cut Off Bengaluru Commercial Property’s Access: Karnataka HC Orders Free, Permanent Replacement Route And Strikes BMRCL Way-Leave Charges For Affected Owners

BMRCL acquired 152 sq. m. of the petitioner’s road-facing property for a Metro station and demolished part of its commercial building.

The petitioner alleged that the works eliminated access to the remaining property and disrupted utility services; its tenant allegedly vacated in August 2019.

BMRCL offered access under its 2022 Way Leave Policy, including a combined passage subject to charges and a fixed-term agreement.

The petitioner sought separate six-metre ingress and egress, utility routes, a declaration invalidating the Policy’s relevant terms, and damages of ₹11,30,36,834.57.

BMRCL disputed liability and the rental-loss claim.

The Court considered maintainability, the Policy’s validity, access and utility relief, the effect of acquisition compensation, and damages.

Article 226 empowers the High Court to review public-law action; disputed facts and an alternative remedy do not automatically bar writ relief, though the nature of the claim and evidence required remain relevant, as stated in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] and Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2021) 6 SCC 771].

Under Article 14, a public authority must act fairly and non-arbitrarily; a policy provision allowing access to be withdrawn without notice, reasons, refund or alternative access, and charges imposed without regard to the circumstances creating the need for replacement access, may be invalid in its application.

Article 300A requires deprivation of property to be authorised by law but does not itself establish a right to access of a particular width.

Section 28 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 identifies severance, injurious affection and damage to earnings as matters relevant to compensation; payment for acquired land does not, without examination of the award, establish that distinct consequential losses were compensated.

The Court also considered the Way Leave Policy’s case-specific assessment provisions and Regulation 4.6 of Part 3 of the National Building Code, 2016, concerning access requirements for high-rise and special buildings.

The Court held that the writ challenge and replacement-access claim were suitable for consideration because BMRCL’s admissions and correspondence established the acquisition, demolition and need for an alternative route; the disputed rental-loss evidence concerned the separate damages claim.

The Policy itself contemplated individual assessment, but its unrestricted termination clause and charging provisions failed to account for owners whose access was lost through the Metro project, making those provisions arbitrary as applied to that class.

On the record, the Court found replacement access necessary and considered separate six-metre lanes justified by the building’s commercial use and safety needs, while directing a technical committee to determine whether separate lanes could be provided; if not, a single access of at least 40 feet was required.

BMRCL’s compensation for the acquired land and demolished structure did not automatically extinguish a distinct claim concerning the remaining property, but the lease, causation, mitigation, award components and quantum required evidence and trial.

The Court declared the specified termination and charging provisions of BMRCL’s Way Leave Policy invalid and unenforceable against the petitioner and other owners whose access or frontage was lost through BMRCL acquisition for the Metro project.

It ordered BMRCL to mark and provide, free of cost and permanently, separate six-metre ingress and egress—or, if a committee gives written reasons that separate lanes cannot be provided, a single access of at least 40 feet—and to permit water, electricity and sewerage lines without way-leave charges.

The petitioner may pursue rental loss and consequential damages in a civil suit; the Court made no monetary decree for the claimed ₹11,30,36,834.57 and granted the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for time spent in the writ proceedings.

BMRCL was directed to pay ₹10 lakh in costs, issue internal instructions for future cases and report compliance; the matter was listed for compliance reporting.