Whitefield and Hoodi Landowners Oppose UDD Plan to Cap Family Partition Plots

On Saturday, the Urban Development Department (UDD) issued a draft notification proposing to cap plots for family partition at 2,000 square metres on Bengaluru's outskirts, including Whitefield and Hoodi. Under the proposed changes to the zonal regulations of the Revised Master Plan-2015, any partitioned land exceeding this size must surrender 48 percent of its area for roads and civic amenities if it is split and developed.

The proposal has drawn sharp criticism from local ancestral landholders in newer civic areas who fear losing nearly half of their family properties.

Sriram, a resident of B. Narayanapura in Whitefield, said his family has already lost eight acres to past development projects. Now left with three acres, they fear losing a significant portion of their remaining land under the new regulation.

Similarly, H.M. Chandrashekhar, a native of Hoodi, has filed a formal objection to the draft. Chandrashekhar owns nearly an acre of ancestral land and another large plot hosting a family-run college, which his mother willed to be split among four brothers. He argued in his objection that the 2,000 square metre limit is "arbitrary, unreasonable and liable to be reconsidered," adding that the draft imposes an artificial ceiling without a clear planning rationale.

Another affected landowner, M. Prakash, who bought four acres in Mavallipura in 2000, expressed similar worries. He stated he wants to split the property between his two children but fears losing half of it to the civic mandate.

In response to the objections, a senior UDD official defended the draft notification, stating that large undivided land parcels on the city's outskirts have led to low road density and severe traffic congestion. The official argued that without these rules, the shortage of parks, playgrounds, and roads on the outskirts will only worsen, making the policy necessary for the larger public interest.

Property consultant and developer K.R. Ramesh clarified that the rule to part with land only applies when properties are converted to non-agricultural use and developed into multiple plots. He noted that agricultural land can still be split among progeny without attracting these provisions.