SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 7353

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ, C.M. POONACHA, J
SARAKKI LAKE AREA IMPROVEMENT TRUST – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 3703 OF 2023 (GM-RES)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Y HARIPRASAD
For the Respondents:NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4, R6 TO R8 & R12, S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R5, UNNIKRISHNAN M, ADVOCATE FOR R9, K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R10, SHASHANK GARG, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W B.S. RADHANANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR R13

Construction within an established buffer zone around water bodies is illegal; authorities must enforce compliance to protect environmental integrity.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 & 227 - Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 - Section 9 - Public Interest Litigation regarding illegal constructions in buffer zone of Sarakki Lake - Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to stop unauthorized constructions and restore the lake as per revenue records - The construction of residential complex by Respondent No. 13 was found to violate the 30-metre buffer zone stipulated for the lake area. (Paras 1, 2, 29)

(B) Encroachment - The court found that multiple encroachments around Sarakki Lake previously identified had not been cleared. Direction given to form a committee to ensure compliance with legal provisions for the protection of the lake. (Paras 26, 28)

Facts of the case:
Petition filed to prevent illegal construction in the buffer zone of Sarakki Lake and restore its original conditions in compliance with the earlier writ injunction. The petitioner asserts that continued encroachment jeopardizes the ecological balance around the lake. (Para 1)

Findings of Court:
The court directed the formation of a committee to supervise the regulation and protection of the area's ecological balance, specifically calling for immediate action to address the violations caused by encroachments in the buffer zone. (Paras 29, 30)

Issues: The core issue addressed is the legality of construction activities within the designated buffer zone of the lake. There is also a need to execute earlier directives to clear encroachments and restore the lake's environmental status. (Paras 6, 30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that any construction within the stipulated buffer zone is illegal and mandated regulatory authorities to act against encroachments, highlighting the responsibility of state mechanisms to protect public interests and enforce compliance with environmental laws. (Paras 9, 28)

Result: The petition was disposed of with directions for regulatory action to secure the lake's boundaries and rectify violations.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks to prevent illegal construction in buffer zone. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. respondent disputes legality of construction claims. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court identifies enforcement issues regarding encroachment. (Para 6 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15)
4. court reasserts importance of buffer zone compliance. (Para 20 , 22)
5. forms committee for regulatory compliance on lake safety. (Para 29 , 30)

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

1. The present Public Interest Litigation is filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:

"Wherefore, the Petitioner prays this Hon'ble Court

(a) To issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondents 5, 6, 8 and 12 to stop the illegal constructions in the site situated at Jagruthi Colony, Puttenahalli, JP Nagar 7th Phase, done by the 13th Respondent.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents No 5,6,8,12 & 13 with regard to the site/property described in this petition to take all necessary steps to restore the sarakki lake land, its buffer area, the rajakaluve, the main road on top of the bund to their original status as per revenue records and RMP by clearing all illegal constructions and infringements on building code in accordance with law.

(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to Respondent no 2 and 5 to establish the identity and take action against the proponents of the illegal constructions, business establishments, land developers that their unauthorized activities cease forthwith and they compensate the damages caused to the lake environment.

(d) Issue writ, order directing Respondent no.1 to initiate probe proceedings to fix personal responsibility of the jurisdictional officials in to reasons for inaction leading to damage to the lakes environment and infringement on the main tank bund road.

(f) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the above case including costs in the interest of justice and equity."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that Sarakki Lake [Lake] is located between the 6th and 7th phases of J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru (South) and is spread over 82 acres and 19 guntas with a catchment area of 5.65 sq. kilometers. That various Apartments and Commercial Complexes were being constructed in the vicinity of the lake area, thereby illegally encroaching the same. Hence, the petitioner along with others filed W.P. No. 17464/2013[GM- RES-PIL]. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.08.2014 disposed of the said petition and ordered for, inter alia, removal of encroachments and comprehensive rejuvenation of the Lake.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in compliance of the directions of this Court, the Tahsildar Bangalore South under the direction of the Deputy Commissioner and the assistance of the Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] which is the Lake Custodian removed various illegal encroachments. The BDA had initiated the fencing of the Lake boundary. However, the same was incomplete and the custody of the Lake was handed over to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [BBMP] on 11.04.2016. It is further contented that respondent No.13 had put up construction of a residential apartment complex in violation of the Master Plan - 2015. Hence, the writ petition is filed seeking for the aforementioned reliefs.

4. Respondent No.13 [Builder/private respondent] has entered appearance and filed statement of objections denying the assertion of the petitioner that the construction put up is illegal. It was also stated that the construction was put up by M/s. Reddy Structures Pvt. Ltd. and not by M/s.Mahaveer Developers which is arrayed as respondent No13. It is asserted that the construction put up is in accordance with the Master Plan 2015 and the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 [KTCP Act]. It is further asserted that a buffer zone of 30 metres is stipulated from the lake boundary and the construction

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top