Sarvodaya Education Society Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sarvodaya Education Society Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed. Consequential direction to Respondent No.2 to forthwith release the balance security deposit after forfeiting 12.5%. Pending IAs disposed as not surviving for consideration.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice dated 13.08.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 terminating the lease deed dated 17.03.2007 (Annexure-A) in respect of the civic amenity site warranted quashing and setting aside. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner failed to diligently pursue construction for the purpose for which the civic amenity site was granted; even after sanction of the plan on 05.12.2020 no construction was put up and the photographs showed only a few footings.

Ratio / Principle

Civic amenity sites are meant to subserve the needs of residents of the area; failure to utilise the civic amenity area for the granted purpose tantamounts to depriving residents of its benefit, and if the grantee cannot use the land for the granted purpose the consequence had to follow.

Key takeaways

Sufficient opportunity was afforded before termination: despite the notice dated 16.10.2023 granting two years and the time elapsed till the impugned order dated 13.08.2025, the petitioner took no steps to put up construction.ratio¶45
The impugned order terminating the lease is unexceptionable and does not warrant any interference; consequently the writ petition, including the prayer for extension of time, was dismissed.ratio¶49
Consequential direction: Respondent No.2 shall forthwith release the balance amount of the security deposit after forfeiting 12.5% of it.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civic amenity site in Sy.No.108/3b, 111/2b, Navule Village, Shivamogga was leased to an education society by registered lease deed dated 17.03.2007 on condition that construction of the educational institution commence within 6 months and be completed within 2 years; security deposit of Rs.3,88,800/- was paid. Building plan was sanctioned only on 05.12.2020, and despite a notice dated 16.10.2023 granting a further period of two years, construction did not progress beyond a few footings. The Authority's order dated 13.08.2025 terminating the lease and forfeiting 12.5% of the security deposit was held unexceptionable: non-utilisation of a civic amenity site for its granted purpose deprives residents of the benefit and the consequence had to follow. Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 dismissed, with a direction to release the balance security deposit after forfeiting 12.5%; pending IAs disposed.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:53542 WP No. 34691 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34691 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SARVODAYA EDUCATION SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, B.R. NAGABUSHNA, SON OF LATE B. RAMA BHATTA. AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT JAYANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 5600 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SHIVAMOGGA-BHADRAVATHI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (SHIVAMOGGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) XH24+5WR, ADARSH LAYOUT, VINOBA NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA, KARNATAKA-577204 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 13.08.2025 BEARING

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:53542 WP No. 34691 of 2025

HC-KAR

REFERENCE NO.²¨sÀ£À¥Áæ/¸Á.G.¤/PÀqÀvÀ-175/2024-25/1425 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-C) TERMINATING THE LEASE DEED DATED 17.03.2007 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.²¨sÀ£À¥Áæ/¸Á.G.¤/PÀqÀvÀ-175/2024-25/1425 dated 13.08.2025

issued by the respondent No.2 terminating the lease deed dated 17.03.2007. He has also sought for a direction to extend the period for completion of construction and establishment of the educational institution in survey No.108/3b, 111/2b, Navule Village, Shivamogga, as per the sanctioned plan dated 05.12.2020.

(i) The petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It claimed that it had established an educational institution in an extension area and was running it for the past 40 years. However, the place where the school was established was surrounded by hospitals and other commercial ventures.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53542 WP No. 34691 of 2025

HC-KAR

Therefore, the management of the petitioner desired to shift and establish the institution to a peaceful area. Accordingly, it approached the respondent No.2 for grant of a civic amenity site for the said purpose. The respondent No.2 accepted the request and granted a civic amenity site in Sy.No.108/3b, 111/2b of Navule Village, Shivamogga and executed a lease deed dated 17.03.2007, which was duly registered. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.3,88,800/- towards the security deposit. The petitioner was permitted to use the civic amenity site for the purpose of establishing an educational institution by commencing construction within 6 months and completing it within a period of 2 years.

(ii) The petitioner claims that it attempted to put up construction. However, due to paucity of funds, it could not do so. The petitioner claimed that till the year 2014, it tried to collect money for putting up construction, which as per estimate in 2014 was a sum of Rs.26,60,000/-. Petitioner claimed that it raised partial funds for the construction and sought for plan and licence, which was sanctioned by the respondent No.2 on 05.12.2020.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:53542 WP No. 34691 of 2025

HC-KAR

(iii) It claimed that it undertook construction work in compliance with the plan. However, due to certain issues with the contractor who was engaged for putting up construction, the work was delayed. The petitioner thereafter entered into another agreement with another contractor on 26.09.2023.

(iv) When things stood thus, the respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 16.10.2023, directing the petitioner to comply with the conditions mentioned in the lease deed and directed the petitioner to complete the construction within a period of 2 years from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 31.10.2023 in reply to the respondent No.2 undertaking to complete the construction within 2 years from 16.10.2023. The petitioner claims that it started collecting funds from donors and thereafter commenced construction and has laid the foundation for the ground floor.

(v) Thereafter, it again faced severe shortage of funds. The petitioner approached the respondent No.2 and informed it about the difficulties faced by it and sought for an extension. The petitioner claims that though the respondent No.2 assured to extend the term of the lease, it issued the impugned order

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53542 WP No. 34691 of 2025

HC-KAR

dated 13.08.2025 terminating the lease deed and further informed the petitioner that 12.5% of the security deposit would be forfeited. The petitioner is therefore aggrieved by the said order and has approached this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is catering to poor and needy students and is charging a very minimal fee and therefore, it could not gather the required funds for putting up construction. She contends that the petitioner has taken all necessary measures to put up construction but could not complete it due to shortage of funds. She therefore submits that if an opportunity is granted to the petitioner, it would endeavor to put up construction within a reasonable time.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the documents produced along with the writ petition.

The civic amenity site in question was granted to the petitioner and a lease deed was executed on 17.03.2007 requiring the petitioner to commence construction within 6 months from the date of the lease deed and complete it within

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53542 WP No. 34691 of 2025

HC-KAR

2 years therefrom. The petitioner sought for a building on 19.07.2017, which was sanctioned on 05.12.2020. The petitioner did not put up any construction thereafter. The photographs produced along with the writ petition only shows a few footings put up for the proposed construction. Therefore, the petitioner is not diligent in putting up construction for the purpose for which it was granted. It is a matter of common knowledge that these civic amenity sites are meant to subserve the need of residents of the area and if the petitioner has failed to utilize the civic amenity area for the purpose for which it was granted, it would tantamount to depriving the benefit of such civic amenity to the residents. If the petitioner is not able to use the land for the purpose for which it was granted, the consequence had to follow. It is also seen that before the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 16.10.2023 calling upon it to complete the construction within 2 years from 16.10.2023. Despite granting enough time and waiting from 16.10.2023 till the impugned order was passed on 13.08.2025, the petitioner has not taken any steps to put up construction.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:53542 WP No. 34691 of 2025

HC-KAR

In that view of the matter, the impugned order is unexceptionable and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed . It is needless to mention that the respondent No.2 shall forthwith release the balance amount after forfeiting 12.5% of the security deposit deposited by the petitioner.

Pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration

and the same stand disposed off.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

BKN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33