Dismissed¶50

Prashant v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2025WP/13309/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public interest writ petition dismissed by Karnataka High Court DB (N.V. Anjaria CJ, M.I. Arun J; NC 2025:KHC:9955-DB); PIL under Articles 226/227 seeking mandamus to Chief Engineer, Athani Municipal Corporation to cancel construction around lake R.S. No.1233/1 (13 acres 12 guntas), Athani Taluk, Belagavi (Annexure-B); dismissed for delay (filed 2021, moved after four years), vagueness/no particulars, non-joinder of alleged constructors as necessary parties, and absence of proof that the land is a lake beyond photographs.

What did the court decide?

The petition was filed in 2021 but moved only after four years; no details were furnished regarding the nature or extent of the construction, making the assertion of illegal construction on the lake too vague. ¶45

Prashant Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should entertain the public interest writ petition seeking cancellation of the construction ordered around the lake bearing Revenue Survey No.1233/1 (13 acres 12 guntas), Athani Taluk, District Belagavi.

¶44

Court's answer

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The persons allegedly carrying out construction on the alleged lake were not made parties to the petition, and in their absence the petitioners' grievance could not be considered by the Court.

¶46

Key takeaways

The petitioners produced nothing to establish that the land in respect of which encroachment and unauthorised construction were alleged is a lake, apart from proposing to show photographs.ratio¶46
On account of the foregoing defects, the petition was held to be too vague with legal defects and was accordingly dismissed.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka (judgment delivered per Hon'ble the Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria, bench including Hon'ble M. I. Arun) dismissed Writ Petition No. 13309 of 2021 (LB-RES-PIL), filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by five residents of Athani Taluk, District Belagavi styling themselves public spirited persons. The petition sought mandamus directing respondent No.2, the Chief Engineer, Athani Municipal Corporation, to cancel the order of construction surrounding the lake bearing Revenue Survey No.1233/1 measuring 13 acres 12 guntas, Athani Taluk, vide Annexure-B. The Court declined to entertain the petition for three reasons: (i) it had been filed in 2021 and moved after four years, with no details of the nature or extent of the construction, the assertion of illegal construction on the lake being too vague; (ii) the persons allegedly constructing on the alleged lake were not impleaded, without whom no grievance could be considered; and (iii) nothing was produced to show that the land in question was in fact a lake, except proposed photographs. Holding the petition too vague with legal defects, the Court dismissed it.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9955-DB WP No. 13309 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 13309 OF 2021 (LB-RES-PIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PRASHANT

¶10

S/O. APPANNA TODKAR

¶11

AGE: 39 YEARS OCC: SOCIAL WORKER R/O. ATHANI TALUK DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 416 104.

¶12

2. SANTOSH

¶13

S/O. RAMAPPABADATAMBI

¶14

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AGE: 29 YEARS OCC: TEACHER R/O. ATHANI TALUK DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 416 104.

¶16

3. RAVI

¶17

S/O. MURGEPPA BADATAMBI AGE: 27 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O. ATHANI TALUK DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 416 104.

¶18

PARSHURAM S/O. MALAPPANANDISHWAR AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:9955-DB WP No. 13309 of 2021

¶21

R/O. ATHANI TALUK

¶22

DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 416 104.

¶23

GOVIND S/O. JYOTIBAPUJARI AGE: 39 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O. ATHANI TALUK DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 416 104.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI. GIRISH MANGANNAVAR BABURAO, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶28

CHIEF ENGINEER

¶29

AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ATHANI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ATHANI, DISTRICT BELAGAVI - 416 104.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R.1;

¶32

SRI. SHARATH S. GOGI, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CANCEL THE ORDER OF CONSTRUCTION SURROUNDING THE LAKE BEARING R S NO.1233/1 MEASURING TOTALLY 13 ACRE 12 GUNTA OF ATHANI TALUK, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI, VIDE ANNEXURE-B., ETC.

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9955-DB WP No. 13309 of 2021

¶35

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶38

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶39

Heard learned advocate Mr. Girish B. Mangannavar for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent No.1 who appears upon service of a copy of the petition in advance.

¶40

Five petitioners projecting themselves as public spirited persons have filed this petition styled as public interest petition. What is prayed is that respondent No.2-Chief Engineer, Athani Municipal Corporation, Athani, Belagavi District, be directed to cancel the construction ordered surrounding "the lake" bearing Revenue Survey No.1233/1 measuring 13 acres and 12 guntas of Athani Taluka, District Belagavi.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:9955-DB WP No. 13309 of 2021

¶43

It is the case of the petitioners inter alia that the construction

¶44

is carried out by encroaching the banks of the lake and that the respondents-authorities who are the Principal Secretary, State of Karnataka and Chief Engineer have not been discharging their responsibility of protecting the lake.

¶45

There are more than one reason why this Court is not inclined to entertain the present public interest petition. Firstly, the petition was filed in the year 2021. The court has been moved after four years. No details are furnished with regard to the nature of the construction and the extent of construction. It is too vague assertion that illegal construction is being made on the lake.

¶46

4.1 Secondly, those persons who are allegedly constructing on the alleged lake are not made as parties and in their absence, no grievance can be considered by the court. Thirdly and importantly, the petitioners have not produced anything worth the name to show that the land in question in respect of which encroachment and unauthorised construction are alleged is a lake, except proposing to show the photographs.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:9955-DB WP No. 13309 of 2021

¶49