Sri K R Rajesh vs State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 1414 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri K R Rajesh vs State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2026

Author: R Devdas

Bench: R Devdas

                          -1-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                       BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

       WRIT PETITON NO.38370 OF 2025(KLR-RES)

BETWEEN

SRI. K. R. RAJESH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
PRESIDENT OF THE SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT
AND MONITORING COMMITTEE OF
GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
HEGGALA
R/A: RAMANAGARA, BETOLI VILLAGE,
KODAGU-571 218.
                                        ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE., ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      THE CHIEF SECRETARY
      GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
      VIDHANA SOUDHA,
      BENGALURU- 560 001.

2.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      KODAGU DISTRICT,
      ROOM NO.24, 3RD FLOOR,
      NEW DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      BUILDING, MADIKERI,
      KODAGU-571201.
                               -2-


3.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
     KODAGU DISTRICT,
     AC OFFICE, DC OFFICE COMPLEX,
     2ND FLOOR, MADIKERI,
     KODAGU- 571201.

4.   THE TAHSILDAR,
     VIRAJPET TALUK,
     TALUK OFFICE, VIRAJPET TALUK,
     VIRAJPET, KODAGU,
     KARNATAKA - 571218.

5.   THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
     BETOLI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
     VIRAJPET, KODAGU-571218.
                                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2025 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO OR PERMITS THE TRANSFER AND USE OF LAND WITHIN OR APPURTENANT TO THE GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, HEGGALA, KODAGU, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SAMUDAYA BHAVANA VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)

This writ petition is filed by the President of the

School Development and Monitoring Committee (for

short, hereinafter referred to as 'SDMC') of the

Government Higher Primary School, Heggala, Betoli

Village, Kodagu District, questioning the impugned order

at Annexure-B dated 05.03.2025, issued by the

respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District.

2. In the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner

has reserved 30 Cents of land out of 19.04 Acres in

Sy.No.320/1P3, situated at Betoli village, for putting up a

Samudaya Bhavana (Community Hall), at the hands of

the Grama Panchayat, Betoli.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the land

in question belong to the Government Higher Primary

School and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner could not

have granted 30 Cents of land, without following due

process of law.

4. When the matter had come up for preliminary

hearing, the learned High Court Government Pleader,

appearing for the respondent-State and its authorities

raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has no

locus standi to question the impugned order passed by

the Deputy Commissioner. It was contended that if at all

any authority could question the impugned order, it is the

Principal of the school. Moreover, the petitioner has

instituted a suit in O.S.No.83/2025 on the file of learned

Civil Judge and JMFC at Virajpet, seeking permanent

injunction to restrain the defendants' authority from

interfering with the peaceful possession of the lands

belonging to the school. Subsequently, along with a

memo dated 04.02.2026, the learned High Court

Government Pleader submitted a communication dated

27.01.2026 made by the Tahsidlar, Virajpet Taluk, along

with a survey sketch. Having regard to the survey sketch

and the mahazar, learned High Court Government

Pleader submitted that in terms of the RTC, the school

has 3 Acres in Sy.No.320/8P1, 3 Acres in Sy.No.320/8P2

and 1 Acre 30 Cents in Sy.No.320/7, in all 7 Acres 30

Cents. The 30 Cents now earmarked for the Community

Hall does not belong to the school. It is stated in the

report that out of 7.30 Acres, belonging to the school, 20

Cents have been utilized for construction of a temple and

another 40 Cents are used for formation of a concrete

road. The place selected for construction of the

Community Hall is at a distance of 20 meters away from

the school building. No part of the play ground belonging

to the school is used for the construction of Community

Hall.

5. As regards the preliminary objection raised by

the learned High Court Government Pleader regarding the

locus standi of the petitioner, learned Counsel for the

petitioner seeks to place reliance on The Right of Children

to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, where

under Section 21 it is provided that the school shall

constitute a School Management Committee consisting of

the elected representatives of the local authority, parents

or guardians of children admitted in such schools and

teachers. Clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 21

provides that the SDMC shall perform such other

functions as may be prescribed. Further, the Karnataka

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Rules 2012, in

a separate chapter, Part-V, provides under Rule 13 (5)(k)

that the SDMC, shall in addition to the functions specified

in clause (a) to (d) of Section 21 (2), perform the

following functions:

(a) ....

(b) ....

(k) The School Development and Monitoring Committee shall prepare School Development Plan for the financial year

after identifying the needs of the school. It shall be the duty of School Development and Monitoring Committee to oversee infrastructure facilities like playground, compound walls, classrooms, toilet, furniture, provision for drinking water etc., for the school. It shall also arrange construction and maintenance of any works as per Annual Work Plan/School Development Plan. It may acquire, purchase or hire immovable or movable property as may be required for proper functioning of the school. It shall protect school premises against encroachment and nuisance. It shall ensure that the school has the Child Helpline Number displayed prominently. It shall also oversee hygiene, upkeep and maintenance of the school, in addition, monitor the school health programmes and facilitate regular health camps for the children in the school."

6. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that the

petitioner is empowered to question the impugned order

having regard to the provisions of the Rules, since the

said provision enables the SDMC to protect the school

premises against encroachment and nuisance. Further,

reliance was also placed on a decision of a co-ordinate

bench of this Court in the case of the SDMC, Kundur Vs.

Deputy Commissioner, Haveri and others, in

W.P.104897/2022, dated 13.09.2023, where the writ

petition was filed by the SDMC questioning the orders

passed by the Deputy Commissioner, reserving lands for

burial ground adjacent to the school premises. The writ

petition was allowed and the order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner was quashed and set aside.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further

submit that although it is true that the total extent of

land belonging to the school is 7.30 Acres, nevertheless,

what was utilized for construction of temple and the

concrete road is not 60 Cents as stated by the Tahsildar

in his report. What is utilized is 30 Cents only and an

extent of 30 Cents which are not sought to be earmarked

for construction of Community Hall is within the lands

belonging to the school.

8. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner,

learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent-State and its authorities and perused the

petition papers.

9. Having regard to the preliminary objections

raised at the hands of the learned High Court

Government Pleader, prima facie, there cannot be two

views to the accepted position that it is the Principal of

the school in whose name the school can sue or be sued.

To what extent the provisions contained in the Karnataka

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Rules, 2012,

can be made applicable vis-à-vis the statutory rights

conferred on the Principal of the school becomes a

debatable issue. It is also a settled position of law that

provisions of the Rules, cannot override a statutory

provision. The provisions made in the Act, 2009, under

Section 38, empowering the appropriate Government to

make Rules, for carrying out the provisions of the Act, is

to give effect to the objectives of the Act, viz., to provide

for free and compulsory education for all children of the

age of 6 to 14 years. In that context, no doubt, the

appropriate Government is required to make Rules to

carry out the provisions of the Act including inter alia

identification of the area or limits for establishment of a

neighborhood school under Section 6; and to provide for

the other function to be performed by the SDMCs under

clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 21. Accordingly,

in clause (k) of sub-rule (5) of Rule 13, the SDMC is

required to protect school premises against encroachment

and nuisance. But, such a provision will surely not enable

the SDMC to directly sue on behalf of the school. The

SDMC could have requested the Principal of the school to

take up the issue and sue the encroachers, if any.

10. The petitioner has failed to place on record any

decision or resolution passed by the SDMC either to

request the Principal of the school to question the

decision of the Deputy Commissioner, and neither has the

petitioner placed before this Court a copy of the

resolution passed by the SDMC, enabling the petitioner,

President of the SDMC to file this writ petition. In that

view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the petitioner, claiming to be the President of the

SDMC has no mandate to file this writ petition. This

Court also finds that there are disputed facts arising in

this writ petition.

11. Nevertheless, since admittedly, the petitioner

has already instituted a suit in O.S.No.83/2025 on the file

of learned Civil Judge and JFMC, Virajpet, the petitioner is

free to pursue his remedy before the Civil Court. Liberty

is also reserved to the respondent-authorities to question

the locus standi of the petitioner to institute the suit. All

contentions are kept open. No relief can be given to the

petitioner, at present in this writ petition.

12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

13. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/-

(R. DEVDAS) JUDGE

DL/JT/-

CT: JL