ORDER : 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs : 1.1. Quash the notice dated 28.08.2019 (Annexure-J) issued by the Chief Engineer, Shivamogga Mahanagara Palike, Shivamogga i.e., Respondent No.4, directing the petitioners to relinquish land to an extent of 109.80 sq. metrs free of cost, and consequently, quash the relinquishment deed dated 31.08.2019 obtained from the petitioners (Annexures-K), and 1.2. Pass any such order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances, to meet the ends of justice. 2. Site No.46 measuring 60 x 100 feet situated at Durgi Gudi Badavane, Shivamogga was purchased by one Mrs. Girijamma, the mother of the petitioners, on 30.09.1957 under a registered sale deed. On 24.09.1974, a registered partition was effected, out of the said extent, 60 x 50 feet fell to the share of the said Girijamma and the remaining was divided among the petitioners to an extent of 25 x 60 feet in favour of petitioner No.1 and 25 x 60 feet in favour of petitioner No.2. 3. The said Girijamma executed a Will dated 15.11.1991, her share in the plot measuring 60 x 50 feet came to the share of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 equally. Thereafter, the petitioners have been in possession of the aforesaid properties, which have been assigned Khata bearing Nos.519/1379, 520/520/1380, 521/521/1381 and 521/1-1381/1 situated at Ward No.5, Tilaknagar, Shivamogga. The petitioners intending to develop the said lands had sought for amalgamation of the properties, which came to be approved, and a demand for the relevant fee was made. Along with the said demand, a further demand was made that an extent of land measuring 109.80 square meters, that is roughly around 1100 square feet is to be surrendered to respondent No.3 for the purpose of road widening free of cost. 4. The petitioners thereafter approached respondent No.3 for grant of building permit. When again a demand was made for surrender of 109.80 square feet, in view of the said demand and the Khatha not being issued as also plan not being sanctioned, the petitioners were constrained to relinquish the aforesaid land, on which basis a plan came to be sanctioned. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 5. Sri. Siddarth Muchandi, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that 5.1. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 5. Sri. Siddarth Muchandi, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that 5.1. there is no power vested in either respondent No.2 or respondent No.3 to seek for such surrender or relinquishment of land free of cost. The petitioners are entitled to Khata being issued in respect of their own lands as also develop their lands in accordance with law. 5.2. The demand made by respondent Nos.2 and 3 is in the nature of extortion, no such demand could have been made, there being no provision under the law authorizing such a demand. The petitioners, being deprived of the usage of their lands, were constrained to relinquish the same and thereafter immediately challenge the said relinquishment before this Court. 5.3. On the above grounds, he submits that the petition is required to be allowed and reliefs as sought for are required to be granted. 6. Sri. A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that 6.1. the demand for surrender has been made since the existing road abutting the property of the petitioners is proposed to be widened from 24 to 30 metres width. 6.2. the widening of the road is to the benefit of the petitioners. 6.3. The petitioners should therefore voluntarily surrendered their land for such widening. 6.4. In this regard, he relies upon para 6.1(b) of the Zonal Land Use and Regulations formulated by the Shivamogga Urban Development Authority, Shivamogga which reads as under page 26 : 6.1(b). Access Control: Wherever land faces roads with a width of 30 m and above, a buffer of 3m. and a service road of 9m, shall be provided for areas which lies outside the Inner Ring Road. The major roads in the layouts such as 18m and above are to be designed as through roads and shall have punctures or access not less than 200 m apart. Major roads of 30 m wide and above shall have service lanes and the main roads are to be connected to the service lanes at not less than 150m to 200m. Roads of 30 m and above shall be provided with a central median with access for right turning traffic (“U” turns) at 150m to 200m intervals or at important junctions only. 6.5. Roads of 30 m and above shall be provided with a central median with access for right turning traffic (“U” turns) at 150m to 200m intervals or at important junctions only. 6.5. By relying on the above, he submits that respondent Nos.2 and 3/authorities are empowered under the above to form a road having a width of 30 meters. When a buffer of 3 metres and a service road of 9 metres are to be provided and this therefore is required to be surrendered by the petitioners free of cost. 6.6. He further relies on Subsection (5) of Section 32 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'KUDA') which reads as under : (5) The Authority may require the applicant to deposit, before sanctioning the application, the sums necessary for meeting the expenditure for making roads, side drains, culverts, underground drainage and water supply and lighting and charges for such other purpose as such applicant may be called upon by the Authority, provided the applicant also agrees to transfer the ownership of the roads, drains, water supply mains, parks and open spaces, civic amenity areas laid out by him to the Authority, permanently without claiming any compensation therefore. 6.7. By relying on the above, he submits that whenever a person were to apply for development of his property, the authority would be entitled to call upon the applicant before sanctioning the application to deposit amounts to meet the expenditure for making roads, side drains, culverts, underground drainage, water supply and lighting, as also impose a condition to transfer the ownership of the roads, drains, water supply mains, parks and open spaces, civic amenity areas laid out by him to the authority permanently without claiming any compensation therefore. 6.8. He therefore, submits that it is under Sub-section (5) of Section 32 of the KUDA Act that respondent No.2 has the power to call upon the petitioners to hand over the land required for the widening of the road without claiming any compensation. On this basis, he submits that the petition is required to be dismissed. 7. Heard Sri. Siddarth B. Muchandi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, Sri. Nityananda K.R., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and perused the papers. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners are private citizens owning the land in question. On this basis, he submits that the petition is required to be dismissed. 7. Heard Sri. Siddarth B. Muchandi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, Sri. Nityananda K.R., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and perused the papers. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners are private citizens owning the land in question. Admittedly, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are proposing to widen the existing 24 meter road to a 30 meter road. 9. Subsection (5) of Section 32 of the KUDA Act, in my considered opinion, would come into play only when a landowner were to submit for approval a layout plan, and in the said layout plan-roads, parks, open spaces, and civic amenities are to be created and required to be surrendered by the said land owners in compliance with the applicable zonal regulations. 10. Subsection (5) of Section 32 of the KUDA Act is only applicable to such areas within the layout proposed to be formed and sought for approval, Subsection (5) of Section 32 of the KUDA Act would not apply to any road situate outside the layout. 11. In the present case, as observed above, it is the respondents, who are proposing to widen an existing 24 meter road to a 30 meter road and this road would not have been laid by the applicant or proposed to be laid. The operative word in Subsection (5) of Section 32 of the KUDA is "laid out by him", this 24 feet road is an obligation to be discharged by respondent Nos.2 and 3 for access to the citizens. 12. The authority cannot now seek to contend that because it has to discharge its obligation, a private citizen is to surrender his land free of cost without compensation. If at all the authorities wish to widen the road, it is always open to them to seek for acquisition of the land in terms of applicable law. A statutory authority like respondent No.2 or 3 cannot, by abusing the provisions of law contained in KUDA or the Zonal Regulations, prevail upon or coerce a citizen to part with his land free of cost. 13. A statutory authority like respondent No.2 or 3 cannot, by abusing the provisions of law contained in KUDA or the Zonal Regulations, prevail upon or coerce a citizen to part with his land free of cost. 13. Looked at from another angle, the surrender was made a condition precedent for issuance of building licence and khatha as a corollary if the petitioners had not approached the authorities for issuance of khatha or building plan sanction, the condition for surrender free of cost would not have been imposed. If such applications were not made, then in the event of the corporation wanting to widen the existing road, it would only have to acquire the land required as per applicable law and widen the road. Thus merely because the Petitioners applied for building plan and khatha in order to better use their property they cannot be put at a disadvantage by the corporation demanding surrender free of cost. 14. When no such authority is provided either under Subsection (5) of Section 32 of the KUDA Act or under Regulation 6.1(b) as contended by Sri. A.V. Gangadharappa, in that view of the matter, the demand made is without any authority and thereby without any jurisdiction. 15. The last submission made by Sri. A.V. Gangadharappa is that there is an appellate remedy provided is also required to be rejected since the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy in terms of the appeal as regards an order without jurisdiction cannot be said to be efficacious remedy as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Whirpool Corporations vs. Registrar of Trademarks (1998) 8 SCC 1 . 16. In that view of the matter, the petitioners having been coerced and forced to surrender their land free of cost, which could never have been sought for by the respondents, relinquishment deed is nonest. As such, I pass the following : ORDER i. The petition is allowed, The notice dated 28.08.2019 at Annexure-J issued by respondent No.4 is hereby quashed. The relinquishment deed dated 31.08.2018 at Annexure-K is also hereby quashed. ii. Necessary cancellation of relinquishment deed to be executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii. The relinquishment deed dated 31.08.2018 at Annexure-K is also hereby quashed. ii. Necessary cancellation of relinquishment deed to be executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii. The petitioners is also free to furnish a copy of this order to the Sub Registrar to seek for cancellation of the said relinquishment deed. iv. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, so as to enable him to issue necessary directions to the Urban Development Authorities not to indulge in such practices. v. Though this Court could have imposed exemplary costs on respondent Nos.2 and 3, it refrains from doing so.