Sri. Anjinappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2026

                                               -1-
                                                       NC: 2026:KHC:16089
                                                     WP No. 36686 of 2025


                   HC-KAR




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                          BEFORE

                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 36686 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   SRI. ANJINAPPA
                        S/O SRI. KEMPAHANUMAIAH
                        AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

                   2.   SRI. MANJUNATHA C
                        S/O SRI. CHIKKANNA
                        AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

                   3.   SMT. HANUMAKKA
                        W/O SRI. ERAPPA
                        AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

                   4.   SRI. MADHUKUMAR B
                        S/O SRI. BYLAPPA
Digitally signed
by CHAITHRA A           AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          5.   SMT. GALAMMA
                        W/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH
                        AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

                   6.   SRI. BYLAPPA
                        S/O SRI.DURGAIAH
                        AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

                   7.   SRI LAKKANNA
                        S/O SRI. LAKKAIAH
                        AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                             -2-
                                    NC: 2026:KHC:16089
                                  WP No. 36686 of 2025


HC-KAR



8.   SRI. PUTTASWAMY
     S/O SRI. KADARAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

9.   SRI. S.K.MUNIYAPPA
     S/O SRI.KADRAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

10. SRI.YELLAPPA
    S/O SRI.KADARAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

11. SMT. S. LAKSHMI
    W/O SRI.SHANKAR
    AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

12. SMT. CHINNAMMA
    W/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

13. SMT.MADHAVI
    D/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

14. SRI. LAKSHMAN
    S/O SRI. KADARAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

15. SMT. PILLAMMA
    W/O SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

16. SRI. G.J. RAMAMURTHY
    S/O SRI. HANUMAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

17. SRI. FASI AHMED
    S/O SRI.SYED BAKHSU
    AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

     ALL ARE RESIDING AT
                            -3-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC:16089
                                       WP No. 36686 of 2025


HC-KAR



     HONNASANDRA VILLAGE
     DASANAPURA HOBLI
     BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
     BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
                                              ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA .K. N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
     DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
     DR AMBEDKER VEEDI
     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BANGALORE-560 001

2.   THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
     TALUK DEVELOPMENT BOARD
     BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
     YELAHANKA
     BANGALORE-5600 097

3.   THE TAHASILDAR
     KANDHAYA BHAVAN
     BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
     BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
     BANGALORE-560001

4.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     KANDHAYA BHAVAN
     BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
     BANGALORE -5600 01

5.   THE SURVEY OFFICER
     KANDHAYA BHAVAN
     BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
     BANGALORE -5600 01
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA FOR R1, R3 TO R5)
                            -4-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC:16089
                                     WP No. 36686 of 2025


HC-KAR




     THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION
DT.29.8.2025 AT ANNEXUR-E, FOR PROVIDING THE BASIC
AMENITIES TO THE PETITIONER. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS
TO FIX THE VILLAGE BOUNDARY OF HONNASANDRA,
MATHAHALLI, PILLAHALLI AND HUCHANAPALYA VILLAGES OF
DASANAPURA     HOBLI,    BENGALURU    NORTH    TALUK,
BENGALURU. PROVIDE ALL THE AMENITIES LIKE WATER,
ELECTRICITY, DRAINAGE FACILITY AND ROAD FOR THE SITES
FORMED UNDER ASHRAYA SCHEME IN THE SCHEDULE
VILLAGES.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                     ORAL ORDER

The petitioners, who are allottees/beneficiaries of

sites under the Ashraya Scheme, are constrained to

approach this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing

the respondents to consider their representation dated

29.08.2025.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that, despite

allotment of sites, the respondents have failed to provide

basic civic amenities, including demarcation of village

NC: 2026:KHC:16089

HC-KAR

boundaries, and essential facilities such as drinking water,

electricity, drainage, and proper road access to the sites

situated in the scheduled villages.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating

the grounds urged in the petition, places reliance on an

order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in an

identical set of circumstances, wherein directions were

issued to the Deputy Commissioner to ensure provision of

basic amenities. Placing reliance on the said judgment, it

is contended that the issue is no longer res integra, and

therefore, similar directions deserve to be issued in the

present case.

4. Per contra, learned AGA, on instructions, fairly

submits that the obligation to provide basic amenities to

the allottees is not in dispute. He further submits that, if

reasonable time is granted, the Deputy Commissioner

would consider the petitioners' representation and take

necessary action in accordance with law.

NC: 2026:KHC:16089

HC-KAR

5. Recording the submission of the learned AGA,

this Court, before issuing directions, deems it appropriate

to extract paragraph No.5 of the order passed by the

Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.977/2018, which reads as

under:

"5. The petitioners claim that they are allottees of Ashraya sites in the villages stated above more particularly, the schedule villages. Allotting sites without providing basic amenities is of no use to the allottees. If an Ashraya site is allotted without any basic amenities, the allottee would not be in a position to utilize such Ashraya site and the purpose of allotting Ashraya sites would be defeated. A person would be entitled for basic amenities such as drinking water, road, drainage, etc. If the petitioners are not provided with such basic amenities so far, the petitioners shall represent to respondents No.3 and 4 requesting them to extend to provide all the basic amenities such as water, drainage, road and etc. If such a representation is submitted, respondents No.3 and 4 are directed to consider the said representation and provide basic amenities as requested, within a reasonable time."

NC: 2026:KHC:16089

HC-KAR

6. Having carefully considered the rival

submissions and on perusal of the material on record, this

Court finds that the issue raised in the present petition is

squarely covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench

extracted supra. The observations made therein

unequivocally demonstrates that allotment of sites under

a welfare scheme like Ashraya, without provision of basic

civic amenities, renders the very allotment illusory and

defeats the object of the scheme. The right to access basic

amenities such as drinking water, road connectivity,

drainage and electricity is not merely incidental, but forms

an integral facet of the right to live with dignity, which is

recognized as part of Article 21 of the Constitution of

India.

7. The State and its instrumentalities, having

undertaken the task of distributing house sites to

economically weaker sections under a beneficial scheme,

cannot absolve themselves of the corresponding obligation

to ensure that such allotments are meaningful and capable

NC: 2026:KHC:16089

HC-KAR

of being utilized. The duty cast upon the respondents is

not discretionary, but mandatory in nature, flowing from

the constitutional mandate as well as the very framework

of the scheme. Any failure to provide basic infrastructure

would amount to denial of substantive benefits intended

under the scheme and would result in perpetuating

hardship to the beneficiaries.

8. In the light of the principles enunciated by the

Coordinate Bench and bearing in mind the constitutional

and statutory obligations of the State, this Court is of the

considered view that the petitioners have made out a case

for issuance of appropriate directions. Accordingly, the

respondents are required to act with promptitude in

considering the representation and in ensuring provision of

all essential amenities within a time-bound framework, so

as to give full effect to the object and purpose of the

Ashraya Scheme.

NC: 2026:KHC:16089

HC-KAR

9. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part;

(ii) Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are hereby directed to consider the petitioners' representation dated 29.08.2025, produced at Annexure-M, in the light of the observations made by this Court and the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench in W.P. No.977/2018;

(iii) The respondents shall, upon such consideration, take expeditious steps to provide all basic civic amenities to the petitioners' sites formed under the Ashraya Scheme, including, but not limited to, demarcation of village boundaries, drinking water, electricity, drainage facilities, and proper road access;

(iv) The respondents shall ensure that the benefit of the Ashraya Scheme is made meaningful by rendering the allotted sites habitable and capable of being put to use, strictly in accordance with law;

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16089

HC-KAR

(v) The entire exercise, as directed above, shall be completed within an outer limit of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;

(vi) It is made clear that any inaction or delay on the part of the concerned authorities shall be viewed seriously.

SD/-

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54