IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 106786 OF 2015 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

GRAMEENA ABHIRUDDHI AND SAMUHA SIKSHANA SAMITHI, R/BY ITS TRUSTEE, MAHESH BELLAD S/O. SHIVAPUTRA BELLAD AGE: 70 YEARS, R/O. “GOURI KRUPA”, MARATHA COLONY ROAD, DHARWAD.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA V.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. F.V.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE PRESIDENT HUBLI-DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT MANJANNA E AUTHORITY, SUB-COMMITTEE FOR DISTRIBUTION OF CIVIC AMENITY SITES, Digitally signed by MANJANNA E NAVNAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.29 10:13:41 +0530

2. THE COMMISSIONER HUBLI-DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NAVNAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

3. THE PRESIDENT HUBLI-DHARWAD MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

4. THE PRESIDENT REVIVAL FOUNDATION SIKSHANA SAMITHI, NO.37, RUDRAGANGA LAYOUT, DOLLARS COLONY, AIRPORT ROAD, POST BOX NO. 415, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

5. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT MULTI STORAGE BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;

SRI. B.SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

SRI. VEERESH R.BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4;

SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.05.2015 PASSED BY THE 5^TH RESPONDENT IN REVISION PETITION NO.2013 (UDD257 BeMaPra2013) VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court calling in question resolution/recommendation dated 22.12.2012, whereby the civic amenity site bearing plot No.69, block No.345 of Gamanagatti village, came to be allotted in favour of respondent No.4 and the consequential order dated 16.05.2015 passed by the revisional authority dismissing the petitioner’s revision petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a public charitable educational trust and was an eligible applicant for civic amenity site. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the competent authority while considering multiple applications including that of the petitioner, has failed to apply the mandatory parameters under Rule 7 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules 1991 (for short ‘Rules 1991’) which prescribed the selection criteria governing allotment of civic amenity site. It is further contended that the resolution dated 22.12.2012 is a cryptic and does not disclose comparative assessment. Further that the revisional authority has failed to examine the statutory valuation and has dismissed the revision petition by a non speaking order. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vyshali Mahila Samaj, by its President Vs. State of Karnataka, by Secretary to Government, Housing and Another¹ (Vyshali Mahila Samaj).

4. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of their objections filed, have contended that, the allotment was made by a duly constituted Committee after considering the applications received and that respondent

ILR 2004 Kar 2297

No.4 was found suitable for allotment and the decision is an administrative one, not warranting any interference.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in support of his objections specifically contends that, the petitioner/institution has been allotted civic amenity sites through other institutions of the petitioner, and that the petitioner is not entitled for further allotment. This Court vide order dated 04.11.2025 directed the pe