B M Educational Charitable Trust vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 6049 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             W.A. NO.393 OF 2021 (KLR-LG)

BETWEEN:

B.M. EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
P. RAJA S/O PUNBARWEKAM
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO.51, 14TH A CROSS, J.P NAGAR
1ST PHASE, BENGAURU-560078.
                                         ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADV.,)

AND:

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
      DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
      VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGAURU-560001.

2.    THE CHIEF SECRETARY
      GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
      VIDHANA SOUDHA
      BENGLAURU-560001.

3.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      BANGALORE DISTRICT
      BANGALORE 560009.
                               2



4.   THE TASILDHAR
     BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
     BANGALORE 560009.

                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
                            ---

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE CONCERNED
RECORDS IN W.P. NO.10582/2020 AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 24/02/2021 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL.

     THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

Mr.Rahul S.Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant.

Smt.Vani H., learned Additional Government Advocate

for the respondents.

This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order

dated 24.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge by

which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been

dismissed with liberty to the appellant to take recourse to

such remedy as may be available to it under the law.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant runs a school. It is further submitted that

adjoining the school, a plot of land is situated which belongs

to the State Government. It is further stated that the

authorities of the State Government have raised construction

on the boundary wall and therefore, the State Government

should be restricted from raising any construction.

3. We have considered the submissions made on both

sides and have perused the record. Admittedly, the land in

question belongs to the State Government. The State

Government is at liberty to use its land in any way that it

deems appropriate. The appellant is not able to demonstrate

whether it is the owner of land in question or that it has any

right on the land in question. In our opinion, the prayer of

the appellant has rightly not been entertained by the learned

Single Judge.

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal.

The same fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE RV