Dismissed¶47

Shri B M Nagesh v. Tahasildar

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2025WP/1805/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ashraya Scheme site allotment; Hakku Patra issuance; public interest litigation maintainability; Article 226 writ of mandamus; ineligible beneficiaries; individual grievance vs PIL; Lokayukta report; complaints dated 17.01.2025 and 18.01.2025; Sy.No.1 Hompalghatta Village Kasaba Hobli Anekal Taluk; competent authority duty to investigate irregular allotments; dismissal of writ petition; Karnataka High Court 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:11633-DB.

What did the court decide?

A grievance which is essentially and for all purposes addressed to the authorities, being directed against private respondents, could not be entertained in public interest jurisdiction. ¶41

Shri B M Nagesh Vs Tahasildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether a grievance essentially addressed against private respondents (regarding their allegedly ineligible allotment of sites under the Ashraya Scheme) and directed to the authorities can be entertained in public interest jurisdiction under Article 226. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

A grievance which is essentially and for all purposes addressed to the authorities, being directed against private respondents, could not be entertained in public interest jurisdiction.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is not liable to be entertained.

¶46

Key takeaways

Without going into the merits, it is observed that if any complaints are received in respect of any ineligible allotment or irregularity in allotment in the Ashraya Scheme, the competent authority shall be duty bound to look into the same and, if found with substance, take necessary steps.obiter¶46
No other relief, much less the relief prayed for, can be granted in this petition.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (Divisional Bench: Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria with Justice M. I. Arun) dismissed Writ Petition No. 1805 of 2025 (LB-RES-PIL), a public interest petition seeking (i) restraint on issuance of Hakku Patra under the Ashraya Scheme in Sy.No.1 of Hompalghatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk to private Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, (ii) criminal action against them for alleged false representation, and (iii) consideration of the petitioners' complaints dated 17.01.2025 and 18.01.2025. Held: grievances essentially addressed against private respondents and for all purposes addressed to the authorities are not entertainable in public interest jurisdiction; the petition was dismissed without going into the merits. Observed (without going into merits): upon receipt of complaints of ineligible or irregular allotment under the Ashraya Scheme, the competent authority is duty bound to look into them and, if found with substance, take necessary steps.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:11633-DB WP No. 1805 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^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.1805 OF 2025 (LB-RES-PIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI B M NAGESH S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT BOORAGUNTE VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL - 562 125.

¶10

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SHRI SATHISH HR S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.170/1/ YALLAMMA TEMPLE VTC, HANDENAHALLI POST ANEKAL - 562 125.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. G. BALAJI NAIDU, ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11633-DB WP No. 1805 of 2025

¶15

AND:

¶16

TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL TALUK OFFICE ANEKAL - 562 106.

¶17

PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SAMANDUR GRAM PANCHAYATH OFFICE SUBMANGLA, KEMPEGOWDA NAGARA ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106.

¶18

EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANEKAL TALUK PANCHAYAT NEAR ANEKAL COURT ROAD, ANEKAL - 562 106.

¶19

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KHANDAYA BHAVAN KG ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN KHANDAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

VIJAYAMMA W/O M MUNIYAPPA AGED: MAJOR HOMPALGHATTA VILLAGE

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:11633-DB WP No. 1805 of 2025

¶24

KASABA HOBLI, VANAKANAHALLI POST, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106.

¶25

DEEPA W/O SRINIVAS AGED: MAJOR HOMPALGHATTA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, VANAKANAHALLI POST, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1, 4 & 5)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 NOT ISSUE HAKKU PATRA TO RESPONDENT NOS.6 AND 7 UNDER ASHRAYA SCHEME FORMED IN SY.NO.1 OF HOMPALGHATTA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK AND ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:11633-DB WP No. 1805 of 2025

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

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

¶35

Heard learned advocate Mr. G. Balaji Naidu for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for the respondent-State and its authorities who appears upon service of the copy of the petition in advance.

¶36

The first prayer in this petition styled as public interest petition is to direct respondent Nos.1 to 5-authorities not to issue Hakku Patra to the private respondent Nos.6 and 7 under the Ashraya Scheme formed in Sy.No.1 of Hompalghatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluka. The other prayer is to direct the authorities to take necessary action against the said private respondents by lodging criminal complaint for making false representation for availing allotment of site made under the Ashraya Scheme.

¶37

2.1 The further prayer is to issue Hakku Patra only to the deserving aspirants of the scheme. The last prayer is to require the authorities to consider the complaints dated 17.01.2025 and

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11633-DB WP No. 1805 of 2025

¶39

18.01.2025 made by the petitioners in respect of allotment of site, described by the petitioners to be illegal, to the said private respondents.

¶40

Stated in nutshell, the grievance of the petitioners is that instead of giving haaku patras to the deserving and genuine aspirants, the authorities have allotted sites to respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and issued hakku patras to them. It was stated that the matter was considered by the Lokayukta also and the report was submitted.

¶41

By the very nature of the prayer and the kind of it, it is evident that the prayers are addressed against the private respondents alleging that they have got the allotment of site in the scheme without eligibility and that, the hakku patras to them are not required to be issued. The court is afraid whether such a grievance which is essentially and for all purposes addressed to the authorities, could be entertained in public interest jurisdiction.

¶42

Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the complaints filed by the petitioners are already pending before the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:11633-DB WP No. 1805 of 2025

¶45

authorities. These are the individual cases which are to be looked into by the authorities.

¶46

The present petition is not liable to be entertained. However, without going into the merits, it is observed that if any complaints are received in respect of any ineligible allotment or with regard to any irregularity in allotment in the Ashraya Scheme, the competent authority shall be duty bound to look into the same and if found with substance, it shall take necessary steps. No other relief much less relief prayed for can be granted in this petition.

¶47

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶48

SD/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶49

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶50

VMB

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Shri B M Nagesh v. Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri B M Nagesh v. Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahatma Gandhi Rural Development and Youth Welfare Centre, Tumkur Vs the State of Karnataka

Asha Kumari P Vs Sri Kantharaju P S

The Kudachi Agricultural and Vs the State of Karnataka

S Y Krishnappa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Sir M Vishveshwaraya Co. Operative Bank Ltd. Vs M/S Navodaya Educational and Development Charitable Trust

The Secretary Vs Dinakooli Nowkarara Sangha