IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.134/2019 (KLR-RES-PIL) BETWEEN:
1. SRI K.YOGESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O SRI K.H.KUMBAIAH R/AT KAREKALPALYA URDIGERE HOBLI MYDALA POST TUMAKURU TALUK & DISTRICT-572 105 2. SMT. LALITHAMBIKA M.S. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS W/O SRI RANGADHAMAIAH R/AT BYRAPURA VILLAGE AREGUJJANAHALLI POST URDIGERE HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK & DISTRICT-572 105 3. SMT. PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O SRI RANGAIAH R/AT MADHUGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE AREGUJJANAHALLI POST URDIGERE HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK & DISTRICT-572 105 4. SRI K.P.KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH R/AT KAREKALPALYA URDIGERE HOBLI MYDALA POST TUMAKURU TALUK & DISTRICT-572 105 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI A. MADHUSUDAN RAO, ADV., FOR SRI S.D.N. PRASAD, ADV.,) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDINGS DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU-560 001 REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT AT: TUMAKURU-572 105 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT AT: TUMAKURU-572 105 4. MYDALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT AT: MYDALA, URDIGERE HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK & DISTRICT-572 105 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 5. THE DISTRICT OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CLASS AND WELFARE, TUMAKURU-572 105 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R-1 & 2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-C DATED 30.05.2015 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to entertain this matter as public interest litigation (PIL); rather, we are clearly of the view that the cause, as sought to be espoused in this petition, does not stand in conformity with public interest.
In sum and substance of the matter, a parcel of land bearing Sy.No.34 measuring 4 acres 37 guntas at Basavapattana Village, Tumakuru Taluk, has been proposed by the respondents, under the order dated 30.05.2015, for construction of hostel for backward community students.
It is sought to be alleged that there are number of educational institutions in and around the schedule property, which are providing free hostel facility and as such, there is no need for construction of another hostel for backward community students. It is further contended that there being so many houseless people who are in need of sites, the respondents ought to have considered their requirements. It is also contended that under the order impugned, the hostel was to be constructed within two years, but no steps having been taken to start with the construction indicates that there is no necessity for the hostel as such; and for this default, the land reverts back to the Government.
The submissions do not make out any case for considering the matter in PIL jurisdiction.
As to how a public land is to be used is a matter essentially for the Government to consider and it is not open for the petitioners to suggest as to whether a particular course need or need not be adopted by the Government.
While declining to entertain a similar nature petition, being W.P.No.12862/2018, this Court has observed in the order dated 20.07.2018 as follows:
“Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any substance in this petition and we are clearly of the view that this petition in the name of PIL cannot be considered serving any public cause.
It appears from the material placed on record that out of 3.18 acres of land of the said Survey No.139/1, 0.60 acre of land has been reserved for the purpose of BCM Ladies Hostel.
The learned Additional Government Advocate has specified that such hostel is essentially intended to serve the cause of the education of the girls belonging to the backward classes.
Even if it be taken that the land in question was reserved for development of the Scheduled Caste persons, the cause for which a part of the land is set apart and reserved, cannot be said to be standing at contrast or contradiction to the principal purpose. Rather, it could only be said to be sub-serving the same purpose with specific emphasis on the education of the girls of backward classes”.
The observations aforesaid, for all practical purposes, apply to the present case too.
The suggestion that for the construction having not been taken up for two years the land reverts back to the Government, does not give any right to the petitioners to seek issuance of direction against the respondents. As to what steps are to be taken in relation to the construction of hostel or utilization of the land in question are all the matters required to be left for the decision of the appropriate Government. We find nothing of public interest in this petition.
The petition stands rejected.
SD/- CHIEF JUSTICE SD/- JUDGE sp