A Relinquishment Deed Holds: BDA Told to Allot Balance Sites for Outer Ring Road Land

In 2015, according to the landowner, the Bangalore Development Authority used 2 acres and 5 guntas of her land in Nagavara village for the Hebbal to KR Puram Outer Ring Road without any acquisition proceedings. On February 23, 2016, she signed a relinquishment deed handing the land to the BDA free of cost. In return, the deed said, the BDA would allot alternative sites. It was admitted before the court that the agreed extent was 45,248 square feet of developed sites.

The BDA allotted six sites totalling 22,796 square feet in 2017 and 2018. Then, citing a state government decision of October 9, 2018 that changed the policy on alternate sites, it stopped. On October 17, 2026, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court told the BDA to allot the remaining 22,452 square feet within three months. For any Bengaluru landowner asked to give up land for a road, and for anyone later buying such a site, the ruling explains what a relinquishment deed is worth.

The short answer. In Writ Appeal No. 365 of 2023 with Civil Contempt Petition No. 301 of 2023, Justices Anu Sivaraman and T.P. Vivekananda dismissed the BDA's appeal against a March 8, 2022 single judge order. They held that the relinquishment deed recorded a "specific understanding that the developed land equivalent to the balance 50%" would be handed over, upheld the single judge's finding of promissory estoppel, and directed the BDA to allot 22,452 square feet within three months of receiving the judgment. The trade-off: a written relinquishment deed protected this landowner against a later policy change, but it took a writ petition, an appeal and a contempt case, and about a decade from when the land was used, to get there.

What did the relinquishment deed say?

The judgment quotes the deed. It records that the landowner "voluntarily handed over an extent of 02 Acre 05 Guntas" in Survey No. 50/1A1 of Nagavara village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, "for the formation of Road without notification." It notes a BDA resolution of January 16, 2012 resolving to accept and take over the property. It says she released her right, title, interest and possession "free of cost" to the BDA "this day itself." It records that she "has rights to claim remaining 50%" of the survey number, and that the BDA "hereby agrees to allot alternative Site in lieu of the schedule property relinquished."

The court did the arithmetic. Two acres and five guntas is 85 guntas, which it put at approximately 92,565 square feet. Fifty percent of that is about 46,282.5 square feet. The admitted agreement was for 45,248 square feet of alternate sites, free of cost.

Why did the BDA stop allotting sites?

The BDA argued that it had acted under the policy in force at the time, and that the state government later revisited that policy and decided to allot only 11,979 square feet of developed area for each acre of land used without acquisition for a public purpose. It said only about 55 percent of land in a layout can be used as sites after roads, drains and amenities, that the deed allowed 50 percent of developed land rather than 50 percent of the area used, and that giving the full 45,248 square feet would amount to unjust enrichment because the land was agricultural and worth far less than the developed sites already allotted.

On that basis, the BDA argued the single judge's direction to allot a further 22,452 square feet was "absolutely unjustifiable," since it had already handed over developed residential plots.

The landowner's case was simpler: she executed the relinquishment deed on the specific understanding that 45,248 square feet of developed land would be handed over, and the BDA could not resile from it.

What did the Division Bench decide?

The Bench found "nothing on record to show that there was any other Agreement between the parties." Reading the deed, it held that the understanding was that developed land equivalent to the balance 50 percent would be handed over. It upheld the single judge's conclusion that the BDA's act of getting the land relinquished "gives rise to a claim of promissory estoppel" in her favour.

It also rejected the BDA's layout argument on the facts. The land was taken "for the formation of a road and not for the formation of any layout," so "the entire extent of land relinquished by the writ petitions, free of cost has been utilised" by the BDA. The agreement was that she would get approximately 50 percent of the land she lost to a public need, without acquisition, as developed sites.

Why did an earlier ruling not help the BDA?

The BDA relied on a Division Bench judgment of September 12, 2019 in Writ Appeal No. 697 of 2018. The Bench explained the facts of that case. There, the BDA had used 1.5 guntas of a landowner's land for the Outer Ring Road in 1996. He had asked for alternate sites equal to 50 percent of the land lost, and those sites had already been allotted. He then filed a writ petition seeking alternate sites equal to 100 percent of the land used without acquisition. The court in 2019 found that the value of the land he lost in 1996 was far less than the value of the sites allotted to him for 50 percent of the area, allowed the BDA's appeal and dismissed his writ petition.

The 2026 Bench said that ruling "was not rendered in a case where the land loser was prompted to execute a relinquishment deed on the specific understanding that 50% of the land in question would be allotted to her in the form of developed sites." Here, the landowner had received only 22,796 square feet against the agreed figure, so the earlier case did not apply.

How do the numbers compare?

What happens to the contempt case?

The landowner had also filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the single judge's order. The Bench closed it with a direction to the BDA Commissioner to allot developed sites measuring 22,452 square feet within three months, and reserved liberty to the landowner to reopen the contempt case if the directions are not complied with. The judgment does not say where the remaining sites will be located.

The single judge had also been asked for Rs 50 lakh as compensation for delayed allotment. The Division Bench judgment summarises that prayer but its operative order deals only with allotment of the balance sites.

What does this mean for landowners and for buyers of such sites?

For landowners, the lesson is about paper. This landowner's claim survived a later policy change because the deed itself recorded the 50 percent understanding, and the court found no other agreement. PropNewz covered a related dispute over BDA alternate sites, decided on October 1, 2026, in our report on a BDA site sold twice in RMV 2nd Stage. There, alternate sites allotted to a former landowner collided with an earlier allotment to someone else.

In this case, the BDA's later policy did not override the relinquishment deed it had already executed and acted upon by allotting sites. The BDA's revised figure of 11,979 square feet per acre was argued as the governing rule, but the Bench decided the case on what the 2016 deed itself said.

For buyers, sites that a development authority allots in lieu of land have their own history. That history includes the relinquishment deed, the authority's resolution, the allotment letter and the sale deed. Our guide to mother deeds and chain of title explains how to trace it.

1. If you are a landowner asked to give land for a road, insist that the deed states exactly what you will receive, in square feet and in what form.
2. Keep the authority's resolution approving the arrangement with the deed.
3. Record any allotments received against the total promised, with dates.
4. If you are buying an alternate site, ask for the relinquishment deed and resolution behind it.
5. Check that the allotment letter and sale deed match the site's number, measurements and layout.
6. Ask whether any writ petition, contempt case or policy dispute affects the allotment.
7. Have a lawyer verify that the BDA's sale deed has been registered before you pay.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Karnataka High Court decide in the Nagavara Outer Ring Road case?

On October 17, 2026, a Division Bench dismissed the BDA's appeal in Writ Appeal No. 365 of 2023, upheld a finding of promissory estoppel based on the 2016 relinquishment deed, and directed the BDA to allot the balance 22,452 square feet of developed sites within three months of receiving the judgment.

How much land did the landowner give up and how much was promised?

She relinquished 2 acres 5 guntas in Survey No. 50/1A1, Nagavara village, which the court put at about 92,565 square feet. It was admitted that 45,248 square feet of developed sites were agreed as alternate sites, of which 22,796 square feet were allotted in 2017 and 2018.

Why did the BDA's policy change argument fail?

The BDA cited an October 9, 2018 state decision allowing only 11,979 square feet of developed area per acre. The Bench held the relinquishment deed recorded a specific understanding of 50 percent as developed sites, found no other agreement on record, and noted the land was used for a road, not a layout.

What happened to the landowner's contempt petition?

The Bench closed the contempt case with a direction to the BDA Commissioner to allot developed sites measuring 22,452 square feet within three months, and reserved liberty to the landowner to reopen the contempt case if the directions are not complied with.

Last updated 2026-11-01. PropNewz Team.