BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court upheld the grant of a three-acre parcel of land in different survey numbers in Koramangala to the Ministry of External Affairs for the construction of a Regional Passport Office.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha passed the order recently, dismissing the public interest litigation filed by Dr B R Ambedkar Youth Social and Cultural Welfare Trust.
The court noted that the three acres are under the ownership of the Public Works Department, and therefore, it was proposed to rectify the survey numbers. Accordingly, the state government passed an order, dated January 25, 2023, amending the Government Order dated November 19, 1994, to provide the details of the land of different survey numbers granted to the Ministry of External Affairs.
In view of the amendment for allotting the land to the central government, the assumption on which the petition rests does not hold good. Undisputedly, the central government is occupying the land as allotted to it, the court added.
“Whilst the petitioner’s concern that open lands in the city are shrinking is justified, we are unable to accept that the central government can be interdicted from utilising the land allotted to it. We may also note that no zonal plans have been produced that reflect that the subject land is a playground or an open area,” the court said.
The petition was filed seeking that directions be issued to the Passport Seva Kendra to immediately demolish and remove the structures that have been raised on the land in question at Koramangala village in Begur hobli in the city, belonging to the erstwhile BBMP.
The petitioner contended that the land in question has been used as a playground for several decades by children attending schools in the immediate vicinity. It is also used by other residents of the locality, which has become increasingly congested. The central government has constructed a compound wall around the property, which effectively prevents the public, particularly children, from using the property, for which a First Information Report was also registered, the petitioner stated.