Sri S Umapathi, Vs State of Karnataka

SRI RAJA VIDYA SAMSTHE (R) NAYAKANAHATTI VILLAGE NAYAKANAHATTI HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 536 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT CUM SECRETARY

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1 TO 5)

¶27

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 OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, DIRECTING THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AND 3^RD RESPONDENT FOR PASSING FINAL ORDERS ON THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY THE 5^TH RESPONDENT DATED 23/11/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-H FOR CANCELLING THE LAND GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF 6^TH RESPONDENT AND TO RESUME THE ABOVE LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND RESERVING THE SAME FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES & ETC.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34590-DB WP No. 34983 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶32

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶35

The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 5.

¶36

The petitioner has filed the present petition as a public interest litigation, inter alia , praying that directions be issued to the second and third respondents to pass the final order on the proposal dated 23.11.2018 furnished by the fifth respondent for cancelling the subject land granted in favour of the sixth respondent.

¶37

The petitioner states that on 19.10.1993, respondent No.2 had granted 2 acres of land comprising in Survey No.193 of Nayakanahatti Village, Nayakanahatti Hobli, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District, for the purposes of construction of a high school and playground for children. The petitioner states that the said grant was subject to the condition that the subject land would

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34590-DB WP No. 34983 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

be utilized within a period of two years from the date of grant and the grantee will also comply with other rules and regulations. It is stated that consequent to the said grant the name of respondent No.6 was mutated in the revenue records.

¶41

The petitioner claims that despite the said condition, respondent No.6 did not establish any school or develop the subject land as a playground for the children. Since the subject land was not utilized for the purpose for which it was granted, the grant was liable to be cancelled. The petitioner further states that the proposal had been furnished by the fifth respondent for cancelling the grant and resumption of the subject land. However, no steps have been taken in this regard.

¶42

In view of the averments made in the present petition, we consider it apposite to direct the respondent authorities to consider the averments made in the present petition and take an informed decision, and if necessary and warranted, take steps for resumption of the subject land, albeit in accordance with law.

¶43

We have not issued any notice in the present petition to respondent No.6 and therefore we consider it apposite to clarify

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:34590-DB WP No. 34983 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

that if any steps are proposed to be taken by the authorities, which are adverse to respondent No.6, respondent No.6 shall be afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard and the principles of natural justice shall be followed.

¶48

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶49

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶50

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶51

KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15

Sri S Umapathi, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Umapathi, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Hanumakka Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Arete 22 Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S Prism Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. K. Ramesh Vs Ranganath

Eidgah Vs Mr. Ilyas Ahmad Isamadi

M/S Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S K P C Projects Limited

Mr. Arthur Joseph Pinto Vs Managing Director and Ceo.