Introduction:

The Karnataka High Court, in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Youth Social and Cultural Welfare Trust v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 8485 of 2024 (GM-RES-PIL)], was called upon to examine a Public Interest Litigation challenging the construction of a compound wall and the functioning of a Passport Seva Kendra on a parcel of land in Koramangala, Bengaluru, which the petitioner claimed had long been used as a playground by children and residents of the locality. The PIL was premised on concerns of shrinking open spaces in an increasingly congested city and alleged unauthorised occupation of land by a central government establishment. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha, after considering the rival submissions and examining the government records, dismissed the petition, holding that the land in question was duly allotted to the Central Government and that no material such as a zonal plan had been produced to establish that the land was earmarked as a playground. While acknowledging the broader concern regarding the reduction of open spaces in urban areas, the Court underscored that public interest litigation cannot be used to restrain the government from utilising land lawfully allotted to it, particularly in the absence of concrete statutory or planning violations.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner Trust, represented by its counsel, argued that the land measuring approximately 1 acre and 30 guntas situated in Survey No. 12 of Koramangala Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru, had been used as a playground for several decades by school-going children from nearby institutions as well as by residents of the surrounding locality. It was contended that Bengaluru, being a densely populated metropolitan city, was already facing an acute shortage of open and recreational spaces, and the subject land served as a vital breathing space for the community. The petitioner alleged that the Central Government, through the Passport Seva Kendra, had unauthorisedly raised constructions and erected a compound wall around the land, thereby preventing public access and depriving children of their right to play and engage in outdoor activities. Placing reliance on a Government Order dated 19.11.1994, the petitioner submitted that 3 acres of land had originally been allotted to the Ministry of External Affairs in Survey No. 61 of Koramangala Village, Bengaluru South Taluk, and that this land was located approximately 1.5 kilometres away from the subject property. According to the petitioner, the passport office had been constructed not on the allotted land but on a different parcel altogether, making the construction illegal and arbitrary. It was further urged that permitting the Ministry of External Affairs to continue using the subject land would have severe adverse consequences on the welfare of local residents, particularly children, whose interests deserved priority in urban planning. The petitioner thus sought directions for demolition and removal of the structures raised on the land and restoration of the area for public use.

Arguments of the Respondents:

Opposing the PIL, the Union of India and the Passport Seva Kendra, represented by Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath, submitted that the entire premise of the petition was based on an incorrect understanding of the land allotment. It was pointed out that while the Government Order dated 19.11.1994 did contain a reference to Survey No. 61, the said reference was erroneous. This error, it was submitted, was subsequently rectified by a Government Order dated 25.01.2023, which clarified that the 3 acres of land allotted to the Ministry of External Affairs for establishing the Regional Passport Office was situated across different survey numbers, and not confined to Survey No. 61 alone. The respondents contended that the Central Government was in lawful occupation of the land as per the corrected allotment and that the Passport Seva Kendra had been established strictly in accordance with the government orders. It was further argued that the petitioner had failed to produce any zonal development plan, master plan, or statutory document to demonstrate that the subject land was designated as a playground or an open recreational area under the applicable planning laws. The respondents emphasised that public interest litigation cannot be sustained on assumptions or long-standing usage claims without legal backing, especially when the land stands validly allotted to the government for a public purpose. They urged the Court to dismiss the petition, warning against judicial interference in administrative and policy decisions relating to land use in the absence of illegality.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully considering the submissions of both sides, the Division Bench dismissed the PIL, holding that the petition was founded on an incorrect assumption regarding the status and allotment of the land. The Court took note of the Government Order dated 25.01.2023, which rectified the earlier error and clarified that the land allotted to the Ministry of External Affairs for the Regional Passport Office was indeed situated under different survey numbers, including the land in question. The Bench observed that it was undisputed that the Central Government was occupying the land as allotted to it and that no credible material had been placed on record to show that the land was earmarked as a playground or open space under any statutory plan. The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s concern that open lands in Bengaluru are shrinking and recognised that such concerns are legitimate in the context of urban development and quality of life. However, it categorically held that such general concerns cannot justify interdiction of the government from utilising land lawfully allotted to it for public purposes. The absence of zonal plans or planning documents indicating the land’s designation as a playground proved fatal to the petitioner’s case. The Court reiterated that public interest litigation must be grounded in law and evidence, not merely in perceived equities or emotional appeals. Concluding that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the actions of the respondents, the Bench dismissed the writ petition and declined to grant any of the reliefs sought by the petitioner.