Karnataka High Court
Prestige Estates Projects ... vs The Additional Chief Secretary on 22 December, 2021
Bench: Chief Justice, Sachin Shankar Magadum
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT APPEAL NO.491 OF 2021 (KLR-REG)
BETWEEN:
PRESTIGE ESTATES
PROJECTS LIMITED
AN EXISTING COMPANY
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
PRESTIGE FALCON TOWER
NO.19, BRUNTON ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 025
REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE
DIRETOR-LEGAL
MR.T.ARVIND PAI ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI P.K.SHRIKARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU- 560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET
-2-
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2021 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.3229/2021 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY,
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned writ appeal is filed assailing the order
dated 16.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP.No.3229/2021.
2. The appellant claims that he is the owner of land
bearing Sy.Nos.193, 194, 195, 196 and 152 totally
measuring an extent of 38 acres 22 guntas. The appellant
further claims that the subject matter of the writ appeal
which are agricultural lands i.e. Sy.No.195 measuring an
extent of 0-2 guntas and Sy.No.196 measuring an extent of
2 acres 32 guntas situated at Bommanahalli Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru District
are abutting to the land owned by him. Therefore, the
appellant submitted a representation on 27.11.2020
requesting the authorities to allot the lands. Since there
was an inaction on the part of authorities in not considering
the representation, the appellant herein approached the
learned Single Judge seeking mandamus to direct the
respondents to consider the representation dated
27.11.2020 for allotting the kharab land in his favour.
3. Learned Single Judge having examined the original
records has recorded a finding that the State property has
to be dealt and disposed of in terms of Sections 67, 68 and
69A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The learned
Single Judge was of the view that the State property cannot
be disposed of in favour of particular individual as it violates
Article 39 read with Article 14 of the Constitution. In view
the said reasoning, the learned Single Judge declined to
grant any relief to the appellant herein. Consequently, the
writ petition was dismissed.
4. We have examined the order under challenge and
also material placed on record.
5. The appellant has submitted an application to allot
kharab land in Sy.No.195 measuring 0-2 guntas and 2
acres 32 guntas in Sy.No.196 on the premise that these
kharab lands are abutting to the land owned by the
appellant. The kharab lands cannot be claimed by way of
right and the land owner cannot be permitted to enhance
his extent merely on the premise that the kharab lands are
adjoining to the lands owned by the land owners.
6. In the present case on hand, the subject matter of
the appeal are agricultural lands situated within the city
limits of Bengaluru. The extent of land is more than 2
acres 32 guntas in Sy.No.196. Therefore, we are in total
agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the learned
Single Judge who has declined to grant any relief by holding
that the State property cannot be disposed of in favour of
any particular individual.
7. The order under challenge does not suffer from
any infirmity or illegality. We do not find any ground to
interfere with the reasons and conclusions arrived at by the
learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and
accordingly, stands dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
LB
