Muzammil Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Muzammil Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should interfere in the proceedings, i.e., direct the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations dated 09.07.2025, 03.06.2025 and 30.05.2025, restrain unilateral religious activity and any construction in the tree park premises (16 guntas of land described as B kharab), and ensure peaceful co-existence in the Prestige Jindal City apartment.

Ratio / Principle

Although the petitioners assert that the 16 guntas of land is part of the sanction and that the terms of the sanction/licence ensure that the property is used by all as a Community, they have not arrayed the Authority that sanctioned the plan for the development.

Key takeaways

If the petitioners can sustain a cause, it will be imperative for them to mention (i) the details of the sanction, (ii) the Authority that has granted the sanction, and (iii) the use that is contrary to the sanction; unless these details are brought forth, there will be no scope for this Court's interference.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Ten apartment owners of Prestige Jindal City, Bengaluru, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider their representations dated 09.07.2025, 03.06.2025 and 30.05.2025, to restrict unilateral religious activity and any construction in the tree park premises comprising 16 guntas of land which they describe as B kharab, and to ensure peaceful co-existence allowing every individual from every community to enjoy the premises. The Court (B M Shyam Prasad, J.) observed that the petitioners, though asserting that the 16 guntas form part of the sanction and that the sanction/licence terms ensure community use, had not arrayed the Authority that sanctioned the plan for the development. The Court opined that, to sustain a cause, the petitioners must mention the details of the sanction, the Authority that granted it, and the use contrary to the sanction; absent such particulars, there would be no scope for interference. The writ petition was disposed of subject to all just exceptions.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31765 WP No. 24790 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 24790 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

MUZAMMIL MULLA

S/O MOHSIN MULLA AGE 38 YEARS FLAT NO.13233, PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY MANJUNATHA NAGAR BANGALORE-560073

SYED SADIQ S/O SYED SULTAN

AGE 39 YEARS FLAT NO 26016 PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY MANJUNATHA NAGAR BANGALORE 560073

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

Location: High Court of Karnataka

SHAFEEQ AHMED SIDDIQUI H AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O MR.MOHAMMAD SIDDIQH H RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 32018, PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY MANJUNATHA NAGAR BANGALORE-560073.

MRS KHYATI SHAH W/O MOHAMMED FAHAD MEHDI AGED 42 YEARS FLAT NO.331710,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31765 WP No. 24790 of 2025

HC-KAR

PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY MANJUNATHA NAGAR BANGALORE-560073

FARHAD HUSSAIN S YARAGATTI S/O SAIFODDIN F YARAGATTI AGE 32, FLAT NO. 31026 PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY MANJUNATHA NAGAR BANGALORE-560073

PRASANNA KUMAR PICHAMUTHU S/O W.D PICHAMUTHU AGE 79 YEARS FLAT NO.32017 PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY MANJUNATHA NAGAR BANGALORE-560073

WILLIAM ANTONY RAJ S/O S M JOSEPH AGE 48 YEARS FLAT NO.32097 PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY MANJUNATHA NAGAR BANGALORE-560073

CHRISTOPHER JOHN S/O M JOHN THOMAS AGE 53 YEARS FLAT NO.32091 PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY MANJUNATHA NAGAR BANGALORE-560073

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31765 WP No. 24790 of 2025

HC-KAR

BLESSY VALENTINA D/O MATHIVANAN INBARAJ AGE 34 YEARS FLAT NO.26068 PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY MANJUNATHA NAGAR BANGALORE-560073

MAHAMMED NURJAHN N M S/O MOHAMMED SABJAN AGE 40 YEARS FLAT NO.13165 PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY MANJUNATHA NAGAR BANGALORE-560073

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. MAHAMMED AKRAM, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA 3RD FLOOR, M.S BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 5TH FLOOR, M.S BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31765 WP No. 24790 of 2025

HC-KAR

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT OFFICE AT PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY, TUMKUR MAIN ROAD CHIKKABIDARAKALLU VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI, NELMANGLA TALUK BANGALORE-560073.

M/S PRESTIGE SOUTH CITY HOLDINGS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ACTING THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR/AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OFFICE AT THE FALCON HOUSE NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD BANGALORE-560001.

PRESTIGE JINDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR OFFICE AT JINDAL NAGAR, TUMKUR ROAD

BANGALORE-560073.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, LEARNED HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 09.07.2025, 03.06.2025 AND 30.05.2025 AND RESTRICT ANY KIND OF UNILATERAL RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY IN THE SAID PREMISES VIDE ANNEXURES-A, A1, A2, A3 AND A4; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31765 WP No. 24790 of 2025

HC-KAR

AUTHORITIES TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO ENSURE PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE IN THE PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY APARTMENT BY ALLOWING EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL FROM EVERY COMMUNITY TO ENJOY THE TREE PARK PREMISES. AND RESTRICT ANY KIND OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE SAID PREMISES.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are the owners of certain apartments in a larger development and they are aggrieved because of a particular use of 16 guntas of land [ which they describe as B kharab ]. Mr. Mohammed Akram, the learned counsel, who appears for the petitioners, and Mr. Shamanth Naik, the learned High Court Government Pleader, who is called upon to accept notice for the first and second respondents, are heard on whether there must be interference by this Court in these proceedings.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31765 WP No. 24790 of 2025

HC-KAR

This Court must observe that the petitioners, though assert that the 16 guntas of land is part of sanction and that the terms of the sanction/licence ensure that this property is used by all as a Community, have not arrayed the Authority that has sanctioned the plan for the development and the petitioners want the Chief Secretary with the Government of Karnataka and the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, to answer on why this Court must not restrain the other respondents from using the property in a particular manner with just directions to them to ensure that the property is used in that particular manner.

This Court opines that if the petitioners can sustain a cause, it will be imperative for them to mention (i) the details of the sanction, (ii) the Authority that has granted the sanction, and (iii) the use that is contrary to the sanction; and that unless

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31765 WP No. 24790 of 2025

HC-KAR

these details are brought forth, there will be no for this Court's interference.

As such, the writ petition, subject to all just exceptions, stands disposed of.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

RB