Karnataka High Court
Sri Dinesh S Jagadal vs State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3214-DB
WP No. 51353 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO. 51353 OF 2019 (LB-RES PIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI DINESH S JAGADAL
S/O SHANTAVEER JAGADAL
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: ENGINEER
R/AT PRASHANTH COLONY
VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI
DHARWAD DISTRICT-580 031.
2. SRI NAGESH
S/O MUTTHA PUJARI
Digitally AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
signed by H
K HEMA OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE
Location: R/AT NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE
High Court
of Karnataka VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI
DHARWAD DISTRICT-580 031.
3. SRI SHIVARUDRAPPA
S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA KOSTI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/AT PRASHANTH COLONY
VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI
DHARWAD DISTRICT-580 031.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3214-DB
WP No. 51353 of 2019
4. SRI JAYAKUMAR
S/O VITTAL SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/AT PRASHANTH COLONY
VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI
DHARWAD DISTRICT-580 031.
5. SRI ISHWAR
S/O BASAVANTHAPPA MUNAVALLI
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/AT PRASHANTH COLONY
VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI
DHARWAD DISTRICT-580 031.
6. SRI SRINIVAS
S/O GOPALKRISHNA LOKAPUR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/AT PRASHANTH COLONY
VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI
DHARWAD DISTRICT-580 031.
7. SRI VENUGOPAL
S/O KRISHNAPPA PUJAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/AT PRASHANTH COLONY
VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI
DHARWAD DISTRICT-580 031.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. YADUNANDAN N., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:3214-DB
WP No. 51353 of 2019
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DHARWAD DISTRICT
DHARWAD-580 001.
3. HUBLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
SRI SIDDAPPA KAMBLI ROAD
HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580 021.
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. HUBLI-DHARWAD URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
NAVANAGAR, HUBLI
HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580 021.
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
5. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, HUBLI
DISTRICT DHARWAD 580 020.
6. SRI YELLAPPA
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA KALADAGI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT INGALAHALLI, HUBLI TALUK
DHARWAD DISTRICT 581 209.
7. SRI KIRAN
S/O TARACHAND JAIN
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:3214-DB
WP No. 51353 of 2019
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT KANDAK ROAD
HAVERI-581 110.
8. SMT. REENA
W/O KIRAN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT KANDAK ROAD
HAVERI-581 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R5;
SRI. GURUDEV I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R6 TO R8 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT
No.1 TO 5 TO PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN THE LAND MORE
FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE BELOW FOR PUBLIC
PURPOSE/CIVIC AMENITIES AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:3214-DB
WP No. 51353 of 2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
The present petition is filed styling is as public interest
petition. The petitioners, projecting themselves as vigilant and
public spirited persons, have advanced the prayers to direct
respondent Nos.1 to 5-authorities to preserve and maintain the
land in Sy.No.23A admeasuring 1 Acre 26 guntas and 91 Sq.
Yards situated at Prashanth Colony, Vidyanagar, Hubli, Dharwad
District.
2. The facts pleaded are in nutshell that the land in question
was notified and earmarked in the Comprehensive Development
Plan showing the purpose of the land use. It is the allegation that
the land is not appropriately maintained and that, there is a
collusion among the land owners and the authorities.
3. Today when the petition came up for removal of the office
objections, it is indicated that the public interest petitioners, after
filing of the petition six years back in the year 2019, have not cared
to take any steps and some office objections are still to be
removed. The public interest petitioners sat tight and took no
NC: 2025:KHC:3214-DB
interest in prosecuting the petition for long six years. The
petitioners had no care or urgency.
4. When the petitioners are negligent towards the alleged public
cause and have not taken any steps to ensure that the petition is
finally posted, and remained inactive since 2019, they are not
entitled to prosecute the petition projecting themselves as public
interest petitioners.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer
Akbar submitted that on petitioners' own showing, the land in
question has been sold out in favour of respondent No.7 and the
sale deed is also executed. According to her, this aspect is enough
for not entertaining the public interest petition.
6. While the petitioners have admitted the above aspect in their
pleadings, there is no corresponding prayer in the petition. In that
view also, the petition is not liable to be entertained.
7. In above view, the petition is dismissed with the qualifying
observation that the competent authority of the respondents shall
NC: 2025:KHC:3214-DB
take appropriate steps in accordance with law if any irregularities
are found.
In view of dismissal of the petition, any interlocutory
application that may be pending, would not survive and stands
accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
PGG
