JUDGMENT 1. W.P.No.35340/2017 has been filed by M/s. Royal Placid Residents Welfare Association seeking for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.11.2014 at Annexure-A passed by the Joint Commissioner, BBMP, wherein the request of the petitioner to declare the 'road' under the high-tension line running through M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium to be a public road came to be rejected with an observation that if necessity exists for formation of road as found in the Master Plan, necessary steps could be taken for formation of the said road. 2. W.P.No.40219/2016 has been filed by M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium, whereby the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the letter dated 10.06.2016 stated to be issued by the respondent no.3 (Bangalore Development Authority) vide Annexure-A1, wherein there is a direction to remove the compound wall stated to have been constructed across the alleged access road. 3. M/s. Royal Placid Residents Welfare Association has contended that as per the sanctioned plan of M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium, produced on 09.10.2019 by the learned counsel for BDA, the access road has been shown at two ends i.e., at the north-western side as well as the south-eastern side of the property. It is contended that the access road that is shown at both the ends runs through the property of M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium and that the obstruction by way of compound wall put up by M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium is to be removed. It is further contended that on an earlier occasion, M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium had filed W.P.No.12503/2014 seeking to quash the notice issued by the Joint Commissioner, BBMP. The said writ petition came to be disposed off directing that the notice that was challenged was to be treated as show-cause notice and the respondent-BBMP would consider the reply of M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium and a considered order be passed. Consequent to the order dated 14.03.2014, the Joint Commissioner, BBMP has passed an order on 15.11.2014, wherein the Joint Commissioner, BBMP has taken a stand that there exists no road in the approved project plan as cutting through the property of M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium. Consequent to the order dated 14.03.2014, the Joint Commissioner, BBMP has passed an order on 15.11.2014, wherein the Joint Commissioner, BBMP has taken a stand that there exists no road in the approved project plan as cutting through the property of M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium. It is further concluded by the Joint Commissioner, BBMP that if road is sought for as contended by the resident association and is stated to be depicted in the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP for short), the concerned authorities could be approached for the purpose of having an access road. It is this order that has been challenged by M/s. Royal Placid Residents Welfare Association in W.P.No.35340/2017. 4. Sri. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner - M/s. Royal Placid Residents Welfare Association in W.P. No.35340/2017 would contend that the approved plan is self-explanatory and points out to the access road on the south-eastern side which leads to Haralur and the access road shown on the north-western side which connects Sarjapur road. It is further contended that the approved plan shows parallel lines to demarcate the road laid all through the property of M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium which connects either end as referred to above. It is also contended that once the plan has been approved by the respondent-BDA, there is an obligation as per law to ensure that road is maintained as shown in the approved plan and reference is made to Section 15 and 73 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. It is submitted that once plan has been sanctioned with road depicted and other permissions including commencement certificate is issued, it is the legal obligation to ensure requirement as shown in the plan to be reflected in the physical development of the property. It is also contended that the very fact of depiction of the said access road continuing through the petitioners property as found in the Revised Master Plan 2015 would substantiate such contention. He further contends that the communication at Annexure- A in W.P.No.40219/2016 would also indicate that even the respondent-BDA has noticed obstruction of the road by M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium. 5. On the other hand, Sri. He further contends that the communication at Annexure- A in W.P.No.40219/2016 would also indicate that even the respondent-BDA has noticed obstruction of the road by M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium. 5. On the other hand, Sri. Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium in W.P.No.40219/2016 would submit that there is no road as contended by M/s.Royal Placid Residents Welfare Association and that the requirement in the form of conditions imposed while sanctioning the plan have been adhered to and that condition no.8 refers to relinquishment with respect to road portion and reference to relinquishment at condition no.8 relates to the access road below the High-tension line as depicted on the north-western side of the plan, which is outside the project area. It is further submitted that a portion of the property belonging to M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium that was relinquished for the purpose of 12.10 Mtrs wide road is only with respect to the narrow extent at the point of exit on the north-western side, which is at the outer end of the project and this ought not to be confused with the road as referred to by the petitioner in W.P.No.35340/2019. It is also contended that as the property is developed in approximately one acre of property and such development does not amount to development of the Layout and hence the contention of petitioner that there exists road running through the property of M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium which ought to have been relinquished in favour of the authority, cannot be accepted. It is further contended that, without prejudice to the contentions raised, if there is any proposal which is sought to be implemented, that ought to be only by acquiring the property of M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium and not otherwise. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA relies on Annexure-A which is the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, BBMP and submits that the depiction of access road at two ends as referred to above does not have connectivity in between, running through the property of M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium and in fact, in the Comprehensive Development Plan of 1995, there was no proposed road shown as running through the property of the petitioner. It is only in the revised Master Plan of 2015, that a proposed road has been shown as running through the property of the petitioner. It is only in the revised Master Plan of 2015, that a proposed road has been shown as running through the property of the petitioner. It is further submitted that reference at Para 24 in the note sheet of the relevant file maintained by BDA while approving the Plan, there is a reference to the access road under the High-tension line on the north-western side of the property, which is at the edge of the project, which is a different road and is not to be construed to be the road as running through M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium. 7. The learned counsel for BDA would further contend that the order of the Joint Commissioner that has been passed is clear and reflects the stand of BDA and if any road is to be formed as per CDP/Revised Master Plan, necessary action may be taken for acquisition of property. It is also contended that on the material available with respect to total extent of land, the only area that is relinquished by M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium is with respect to potion of land which is on the north-western side and there is no other road through the property of M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium that has been sanctioned by the BDA. 8. Sri. K. N. Puttegowda, learned counsel appearing for BBMP supports the contentions as put forth by M/s. Royal Placid Residents Welfare Association and submits that there is a road that runs through M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium and that the road is formed in the area of B Karab (Government land to be reserved for public purpose) that admittedly exists as per the revenue records including the RTC. Reliance is also placed on the Google Map to draw the attention of the court that in fact, the area was being used as road which now has been obstructed by way of a compound wall which is illegal. 9. Heard learned counsels on both the sides. 10. The question as to the correctness of the finding of Joint Commissioner, BBMP, as well as the supporting stand of the BDA, that there is no access road running through the property of M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium has been called in question. 9. Heard learned counsels on both the sides. 10. The question as to the correctness of the finding of Joint Commissioner, BBMP, as well as the supporting stand of the BDA, that there is no access road running through the property of M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium has been called in question. Judicial Review of the order of the Joint Commissioner, BBMP at Annexure-A in W.P. No.35340/2017 and action taken by the respondent-BBMP and BDA is to be made with reference to the following material: a) The approved Residential Apartment Plan of the BDA. b) Deed of Relinquishment dated 02.08.2006 by M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium in favour of the Bengaluru Development Authority. c) BDA file relating to sanction of Plan with respect to apartment complex, M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium. 11. A perusal of the sanctioned plan of the BDA produced along with memo dated 09.10.2019 by respondent No.3 would indicate that there exists an access road at the north-western entry/exit of the apartment complex (marked as A) and another access road on the south-eastern end (marked as B). The question as to whether access road on the north-western side and north-eastern side have a connectivity running through the property of M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium has been considered by both the respondent-BBMP as reflected in the order of Joint Commissioner as well as the Bangalore Development Authority. In an earlier round of litigation, the BBMP was called upon to consider the request of M/s. Royal Placid Residents Welfare Association to make available to the public, access through the alleged road under the high-tension line that is stated to exist in the apartment complex. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.35340/2017, the Joint Commissioner, BBMP, after due consideration has concluded that there is no such road and if the residents so desire for formation of road as contemplated in the CDP, they were free to approach the respondent-BDA for necessary relief. The said order of respondent-BBMP is in question. 12. The respondent-BDA has taken a stand in their affidavit filed on 29.11.2019 that there is no such access road as contended by the residents of M/s. Royal Placid Residents Welfare Association and that the relinquishment deed executed by the developer relates to a road at the entry and exit of M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium at the north-western end of the apartment complex. It is further clarified that the reference to the relinquishment deed executed on 02.08.2006, whereby an extent of 75 Mtrs has been relinquished relates to widening of pre-existing road of 9.73 Mtrs. to 12 Mtrs and does not refer to alleged road under the high-tension line cutting across M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium, as made out by the resident association. 13. Even in the statement of objections filed by the Bangalore Development Authority in W.P.No.40219/2016, the same stand has been taken. Further, reference has been made to the sketch prepared by Assistant Director of Land Records (Annexure-R4) that does not show any connectivity between the access road on the north-western side and the south-eastern side of the land in Sy.No.27, 29/5, 29/12, 29/13 and 29/11 in which the apartment complex has been put up as per the approved plan. 14. A perusal of the approved plan with respect to the apartment complex of M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium would indicate that though an access road is shown on the south-eastern side which eventually leads towards Haralur where the M/s. Royal Placid Residents Welfare Association is situated, and on the north-western side where the road leads towards Sarjapur and HSR Layout, there is no connectivity by way of a road running through the property of M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium. The parallel line that is shown cutting across M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium complex property is stated by the Bangalore Development Authority to demarcate area under the high-tension line and does not in any way indicate a road. Such a stand by the respondent-BDA being a finding of fact cannot be supplanted/ substituted by this Court by any other interpretation. The respondent-BBMP in the statement of objections filed in W.P. No.40219/2016 has no doubt contended that there is an existing road that runs across M/s.Sobha Daffodil Condominium connecting the access road on one end which comes from HSR Layout and on the other end which leads to Haralur, but the said stand is contrary to the order of the Joint Commissioner of BBMP dated 15.11.2014, which has been impugned in W.P.No.35340/2017. The respondent-BBMP is estopped from taking a stand contrary to the finding in the order dated 15.11.2014. BBMP cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. 15. The respondent-BBMP is estopped from taking a stand contrary to the finding in the order dated 15.11.2014. BBMP cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. 15. No doubt, the area under the high-tension line which is depicted in parallel lines in the apartment plan is to be used and maintained as per the applicable regulations of the Electricity Supply Company, in addition to adherence to condition No.10 of the approved plan which imposes restriction of usage of land under and beside the high tension power line. That by itself would not leave it open to declare such area under the high tension line to be declared as a road and be thrown open for public use. 16. The findings recorded by the BBMP in the order passed by the Joint Commissioner as well as the stand taken by the BDA in their statement of objections and affidavit filed are findings of fact and no case is made out for interference with such finding while exercising power of judicial review. In fact, on a perusal of the material placed before this court, such a finding by BBMP and BDA cannot be held to be contrary to material available and in exercise of writ jurisdiction, no occasion arises to interfere with such stand and finding of the authorities. 17. Even if there is any proposal by the Bangalore Development Authority or by BBMP to form a road in order to implement the proposal as found in the Master Plan, the same could only be consequent upon acquisition of property belonging to M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium. 18. In so far as the contention regarding a reference to access road (Samparka Raste) at para 24 of note sheet of the BDA is concerned, the affidavit that has been filed by the Executive Engineer, East Division, Bangalore Development Authority also clarifies with respect to the relinquishment deed stated to have been executed on 02.08.2006 by M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium. 19. 19. It is stated that the reference to the access road (Samparka Rasthe) as found in the note sheet at para 24, is with reference to the 'The approach road to the property in question is through the road shown as 'Access Road below high tension line' which runs east to west and connects the road shown an 12.10 mtrs wide road' which runs North to South: The said 12.10 mtrs wide road passes through 33.09 mtrs in length and 2.27 mtrs in width (total 75 sq. mtrs) area of the property in question. Therefore, it was one of the condition of the approval of building plan that the said 75 sq. mtrs. area should be handed over to the BDA by the petitioner at free of cost by executing relinquishment deed. The petitioner has executed the registered relinquishment deed dated 02.08.2006 as per document No.1'. The averments in the said affidavit when read in context with the other facts clarifies that the reference to access road is to the access road at the entry and exit on the north-western side and cannot be construed as referring to the alleged road as running through the apartment complex as contended by the residents association. 20. This explanation is in consonance with the sanction plan of the apartment complex which depicts the approach road to the complex on the north-western side, where the property can be approached through the access road below the high tension line and through a 12.10 mtrs wide road. There is no reason to doubt the explanation that the relinquishment deed has been executed for the purpose of formation of 12.10 mtrs road on the north-western side of the apartment project. 21. As regards the contention of the petitioner regarding existence of B kharab in Sy.No.29/13 measuring about 2.00 guntas, it is contended by M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium that the said extent has been converted for non-agricultural purpose as per the order dated 26.06.2004 of the Deputy Commissioner, copy of which is produced as document No.2 by the said respondent in their additional submissions submitted on 16.12.2019. 22. The petitioners contend that even otherwise the conversion orders are illegal insofar as B kharab lands are shown as A kharab lands and that question of conversion as if the lands were B kharab lands was impermissible. 22. The petitioners contend that even otherwise the conversion orders are illegal insofar as B kharab lands are shown as A kharab lands and that question of conversion as if the lands were B kharab lands was impermissible. It is made clear that if there is any such illegality as made out, it is a matter to be urged before the Revenue Authorities who however have not been arrayed as parties in the present proceedings and hence, such an enquiry and adjudication as sought for by the petitioners falls beyond the scope of the present proceedings. 23. An additional contention connected to the above contention raised relates to the conversion order with respect to Sy.No.29/13 which shows a road running through Sy.No.29/5, which is sought to be taken benefit of by the petitioner to assert that there is a road that passes through Sy.No.29/5. 24. It is to be noted that the sketches that are made at the time of conversion of land require access to the property to be shown, however, such access that is shown is only for the purpose of benefit of the owners and the sketch showing access cannot be made use of to contend that the access shown in such sketches confers rights on third parties to enforce it as public thoroughfare. 25. Even otherwise, there is a force in the argument of the learned counsel for the M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium that the extent of land required to establish connectivity between the access road on the north-western side of the apartment project and access shown on south-eastern side would be approximately 1325 sq. mtrs. and hence the extent of 2.00 guntas of B kharab land in Sy.No.29/13 even otherwise would not be sufficient for the purpose of formation of the alleged road as contended. Nevertheless it is made clear that the M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium is bound by the restrictions imposed as per the conditions mentioned in the conversion order, as regards land converted from agricultural to other purpose. 26. It is also to be noted that the BDA has taken a specific contention that though the Revised Master Plan of 2015 refers to a proposed road that runs through the apartment complex, in the CDP 1995, which is the previous Master Plan, there is no such proposed road running through the apartment complex. 27. 26. It is also to be noted that the BDA has taken a specific contention that though the Revised Master Plan of 2015 refers to a proposed road that runs through the apartment complex, in the CDP 1995, which is the previous Master Plan, there is no such proposed road running through the apartment complex. 27. It is clear that the Revised Master Plan is only a proposal for development and if the same is sought to be acted upon the planning authority will have to frame a scheme or the Municipal or other authorities could take steps for implementation of the proposed development as shown in the Master Plan. As rightly pointed out by the Joint commissioner, BBMP, it is always open to the residents to seek for formation of road but that would require implementation by acquiring property of M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium. 28. In light of the dense nature of factual contentions, a deeper scrutiny of the available material than that as made by this Court, is not called for in consideration of the matter in the present jurisdiction. 29. Accordingly, W.P.No.35340/2017 filed by M/s. Royal Placid Residents Welfare Association is rejected. W.P.No.40219/2016 filed by M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium is allowed in part. Insofar as the prayer sought for in W.P.No.40219/2016 filed by M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium, it is clarified that Annexure-A is merely a communication and cannot construed to be an implementable order and therefore question of setting aside Annexure-A would not arise. However, as regards Annexure-A1 is concerned, the same is in the nature of directions calling for submission of compliance report regarding removal of compound wall by M/s. Sobha Daffodil Condominium and such a direction is not legally tenable and is set aside in the light of discussion made above.