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. 1967 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. ADITYA SEVA SAMITHI (R)

MYSURU,

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,

SRI. ANWAR BEIG,

S/O. M. GHOUSE BEIG

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

R/AT NO.39/3,

1^ST CROSS, 2^ND STAGE,

ABDUL REHAMAN ROAD,

RAJIVNAGAR, MYSURU-570 019.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. KUMAR J.C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

Digitally signed URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,

by

MARKONAHALLI M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

RAMU PRIYA

Location: HIGH BENGALURU-560 001.

COURT OF

KARNATAKA 2. MYSORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,

J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE-570 005.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR

RESPONDENT NO.1;

SRI. T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE NO.MAI.NA.PRA/VI.THA-5/C.A.1/2021-22 DATED 08.06.2021 FOR CANCELLATION OF THE CIVIC AMENITY SITE NO.1, MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 1386.22 SQ. MTRS. AT DEVANOOR, III PHASE LAYOUT, MYSURU, AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

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.ªÉÄÊ.£À.¥Áæ/«.vÀ-5/¹.J:'1'/2021-22 dated 08.06.2021 passed by respondent No.2, canceling the allotment of a civic amenity Site No.1 at Devanoor's III Phase layout, Mysuru.

2. (i) The petitioner is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1961. It made a representation to respondent No.2 for allotment of a Civic Community Site for the purpose of construction of a community center for the benefit of the needy. Accordingly, respondent No.2 allotted the aforementioned site on 26.03.1999. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.7,76,283/-. Consequent thereto, respondent No.2 executed a lease deed dated 31.01.2007 for a period of 30 years. After registration of the lease deed, respondent No.2 handed over possession of the civic amenity site on 03.02.2007.

(ii) The petitioner claims that in order to construct a community center, it applied to respondent No.2 for sanction of a plan. The respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.13,310/- which was paid by the petitioner on 28.12.2007. After receiving the said sum, the respondent No.2 permitted the petitioner to construct a Community Center. (iii) The petitioner claims that when it was preparing for construction of the Community Center, two persons named Nazir Ahemad and Kaushar Beig tried to interfere with its possession and enjoyment, which compelled it to file O.S. No.1252/2008. The suit was decreed ex-parte against them. Thereafter, when the petitioner tried to construct a building, one of its members, who had taken the entire responsibility to construct the building, died. The petitioner claims that all relevant documents were lying with him and due to his death, the other directors of the petitioner could not secure the documents and start the construction. Again in the year 2018 when the petitioner tried to put up construction, some locals interfered with its possession, which compelled it to file O.S. No.1222/2018 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru for perpetual injunction. The Trial Court granted an interim injunction and the suit is still pending. The petitioner contends that it has constructed a compound around the property and has also put up a shed in a portion of the property and has dumped material required for construction of the community center. The petitioner claims that whenever members of the public approached it, permission was granted to use the site for performing functions by putting pandals etc. The petitioner further claims that due to Covid-19 pandemic, it was not in a position to put up a permanent structure.

(iv) It also claimed that at the time of ex