Open Lands Are Shrinking, Yet Government Cannot Be Restrained From Using Allotted Land; Karnataka High Court Dismisses PIL Against Construction On 'Playground'
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha dismissed a public interest petition challenging the construction of a compound wall around a passport office premises in Bengaluru, which was alleged to have curtailed public access to land said to be used as a playground by children and local residents. The court found that the Central Government was in occupation of land that had been allotted to it by the State, including through a subsequent order correcting the survey details of the allotment. While noting concerns about shrinking open spaces in the city, the Bench held that the government could not be prevented from utilising land granted to it, particularly when no zonal plan was produced to show the site was a playground.
The case arose from a public interest writ petition filed alleging encroachment and unauthorised construction on land described as an open playground situated in Koramangala, Bengaluru. The petitioner asserted that the land, measuring approximately 1 acre and 30 guntas, had been used for decades by schoolchildren and local residents and that access had been blocked due to the construction of a compound wall and buildings by a Central Government establishment.
It was contended that the land belonged to the municipal authority and that the Central Government entity had raised construction on the basis of forged or incorrect documents. Reference was made to a prior government allotment granting land in a different survey number, which according to the petitioner, was located at a distance from the disputed site. An FIR was stated to have been lodged alleging trespass.
The respondents relied on a subsequent government order issued in January 2023 correcting an earlier clerical error in the allotment order of 1994, clarifying the correct survey numbers comprising the land allotted to the Ministry concerned. It was submitted that the land in question formed part of the validly allotted property owned by the Public Works Department and that no statutory notification classified the land as a playground or open space under the applicable law.
The Court recorded that “it is the petitioner’s case that the subject property has been used as a playground for several decades by children attending schools in the immediate vicinity”. The Court stated that “no park, play-field or open space which has been specified can be used for any other purpose”, while noting the concession that “the subject land was not included in any list of parks, playfields or open spaces required to be prepared and published” under the applicable statute.
The Court observed that “there was an error in the earlier Government Order dated 19.11.1994 inasmuch as Survey No.61 was referred” and recorded that “the said error was rectified in terms of the Government Order dated 25.01.2023”.
The Court noted that “the aforesaid 3 acres are under the ownership of the Public Works Department” and that the State Government amended the earlier order to reflect the correct survey numbers of the land granted to the Central Government. The Court noted that “no zonal plans have been produced that reflect that the subject land is a playground or an open area”.
While acknowledging the concern raised, the Court stated that "In view of the amendment to the Government Order allotting lands to the Central Government and the assumption on which the present petition rests, does not hold good. Undisputedly, the Central Government is occupying the land as allotted to it. 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 present petition is dismissed”.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Sadanand G. Shastri, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri K. Arvind Kamath, Additional Solicitor General of India, Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, Deputy Solicitor General of India. Smt. Niloufer Akbar, Additional, Government Advocate, Sri S.H. Prashanth, Advocate
Case Title: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Youth Social and Cultural Welfare Trust v. Union of India & Others Neutral Citation: NC: 2026: KHC:3571-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 8485 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice C.M. Poonacha
