SRI. VELU. B. PETHI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50991
WP No. 25220 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010557792026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 25220 OF 2026 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VELU. B. PETHI
S/O. LATE BALASUBRAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/A. NO. 108/A, 10TH MAIN,
BETWEEN 5TH AND 8TH CROSS,
SADASHIV NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560080.
2. SRI. K.M. KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS
3. SRI. KIRAN KUMAR KRISHNA MURTHY,
S/O. K.M. KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT. VENKATAGIRIKOTE,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE - 562110.
…PETITIONERS
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA
N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SMT. POONAM S. PATIL., ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50991
WP No. 25220 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010557792026
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
MULTI STORIED BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 01.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK 562 110.
3. BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AREA
PLANNING AUTHORITY (BIAAPA),
DEVANAHALLI - 562 110
REPRESENTED BY
THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING AND
MEMBER SECRETARY, BIAAPA.
4. VENKATGIRIKOTE GRAM PANCHAYAT
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
5. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN REGION
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BMRDA),
NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD BANGALORE,
KARNATAKA 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
6. THE BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
TASK FORCE (BMTF),
N.R. SQAURE, BANAGLORE-560002
REPRESENTED BY SPP.
7. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50991
WP No. 25220 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010557792026
KARNATAKA STATE POLICE,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, NO. 2,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001.
8. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
CENTRAL RANGE,
KARNATAKA STATE POLICE,
BENGALURU 560001.
9. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
KARNATAKA STATE FIRE AND
EMERGENCY SERVICES,
NO. 1, ANNASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560042.
10. THE FIRE STATION OFFICER,
FIRE STATION, DEVANAHALLI,
DEVANAHALLI,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.
11. RADHA SOAMI SATSANG BEAS,
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER
THE REGISTRATION OF SOCIETIES ACT, 1860
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT
DERA BABA JAIMAL SINGH,
TEHSIL-BABA BAKALA,
DISTRICT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB
LOCAL OFFICE AT
PARADISE VALLEY, 15TH MAIN,
TUMKUR ROAD,
OPPOSITE PRAKASH ROAD LINES,
BANGALORE - 560 073.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MITHUN G A., AAG A/W
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50991
WP No. 25220 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010557792026
SMT. CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1, R2, R6 TO R10;
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. YOGESH D NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R5;
SRI. RAJESH CHANDER KUMAR ROHRA., SENIOR
ADVOCATE FOR SMT. YOVINI RAJESH ROHRA.,
ADVOCATE FOR R11)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-
DIRECTING RESPONDENT NOS.1-10 AUTHORITIES TO
FORTHWITH INITIATE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.
11, RADHA SOAMI SATSANG BEAS, IN RESPECT OF
THE ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION
UNDERTAKEN OVER LAND MEASURING
APPROXIMATELY 200 ACRES INCLUDING 6 ACRES IN
SY. NOS. 71/4, 71/5 AND 71/6 SITUATED AT
MUDGURKI VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE A SERIES (A-
A6), AND THE ADJOINING AREAS AS SHOWN IN THE
SKETCH SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO. 11 SOCIETY
BEFORE RESPONDENT NO. 3, BANGALORE
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY
(BIAAPA), VIDE ANNEXURE -B, WITHOUT OBTAINING
THE BUILDING PLAN SANCTIONS AND OTHER
STATUTORY APPROVALS.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50991
WP No. 25220 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010557792026
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners assert ownership of certain
lands in Mudgurki village, Hurugulagarki village and
Doddasagarahalli Village, Vijayapura Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk, and they seek directions to the
different authorities [ first to tenth respondents ] to act
against the unauthorised construction/ development
by the eleventh respondent in lands measuring about
200 acres. The petitioners allege that the eleventh
respondent has not been issued with any approval for
such development as required under the Karnataka
Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 [ for short, ‘ the
KTCP Act’ ].
2. This Court, on 14.08.2026, while
recording submissions by Ms. Poonam Patil [ the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50991
WP No. 25220 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010557792026
learned counsel for the petitioner ] has called upon, Sri
Yogesh D. Naik, the learned Standing Counsel for the
third and the fifth respondents to secure instructions
on the permissions/approvals granted to the eleventh
respondent under Section 17 of the KTCP Act. Sri
Yogesh D. Naik, on 20.08.2026, has stated before
this Court that the eleventh respondent has
submitted no application for development of a layout
or construction and that the eleventh respondent is
informed that no approval would be required for
congregation in an open land.
3. This Court upon hearing Sri Rajesh
Chander Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the
eleventh respondent, has permitted the eleventh
respondent to go ahead with the planned
congregation subject to approval from the
jurisdictional Police on the measures to be put in
place for effective conduct and in compliance with the
conditions stipulated in the approval/permission
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50991
WP No. 25220 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010557792026
granted by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner.
This Court has also taken on record the submission
on behalf of the eleventh respondent that no
congregation shall be held after 31.08.2026 without
the leave of the Court
4. In the order dated 20.08.2026, this Court
has also recorded the question that should be
considered for the disposal of the petition observing
that this Court will also have to decide on the
petitioners’ locus. This Court's order in this regard
[ with the correction of certain typographical errors ]
reads as under:
If this Court will have to decide on the
petitioners' locus and whether in fact
the construction by the eleventh
respondent is temporary or is part of a
development or a layout as
contemplated under Section 14 and 17
of the KTCP Act, the question for
consideration today is: should there be
an interim order stopping the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50991
WP No. 25220 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010557792026
congregation organized by the eleventh
respondent and which is underway.
5. Sri Rajesh Chander Kumar R places on
record a memo of compliance with a copy of the
application submitted for approval with the
Bengaluru International Airport Area Planning
Authority [ BIAAPA ] [ the third respondent ]. The Memo
of Compliance reads as under.
“The Respondent No.11 humbly states and submits
as follows:-
1. In compliance of the Order dated
20.08.2026, the Respondent No.11 has
filed an application under section 17(1) of
the KTCP Act with the enclosures as
specified therein. Copy of the said
application is submitted herewith. It is
submitted that same is under process with
BIAPPA [respondent No.3]
2. Further, Respondent No.11 states that they
have stopped all construction whatsoever
after the first week of September 2026.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50991
WP No. 25220 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010557792026
3. Also, Respondent No.11 states that no
congregation / prayer meetings of any kind
has been held at the subject premises after
31.08.2026.
It is humbly prayed that the above may kindly be
taken on record, in the interest of justice and
equity.”
In continuation, the learned Senior Counsel, on
instructions, submits that no further construction
will be undertaken unless all the approvals are in
place and that the use of the land would depend on
the approval granted, that until the approval is
granted the lands would be accessed for maintenance
and protection and that this Court could permit the
eleventh respondent to hold weekly prayer meets in
the open ground.
6. Sri Yogesh D Naik submits that indeed the
eleventh respondent has applied for approval under
Section 14/17 of the KTCP Act, that the third
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50991
WP No. 25220 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010557792026
respondent, acting upon such application, has called
for further information and that the eleventh
respondent's application will be strictly considered
under law. Ms. Poonam Patil, the learned counsel for
the petitioners, proposes to canvass that the eleventh
respondent's application is incomplete in material
part and no permission can flow from such an
incomplete application.
7. These submissions are considered for the
disposal of the petition expressing no opinion on the
petitioners’ locus . It is brought out to this Court's
satisfaction that, notwithstanding what has been
done in the past, the eleventh respondent will not
begin any construction without the necessary
approval/ permission from the Planning Authority
under the KTCP Act and from the concerned Village
Panchayath. This affords reason for the disposal of
the petition with a caution that the third respondent
must ensure that the application filed by the eleventh
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50991
WP No. 25220 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010557792026
respondent is examined strictly in accordance with
law and at the earliest with no delay, and that the
Authorities cannot fail if the eleventh respondent
defaults in this regard. Insofar as the request on
behalf of the eleventh respondent to hold weekly
prayer meetings within the open area in the property
measuring about 200 acres, Sri Mithun G A, the
learned Additional Advocate General, is heard.
8. In the circumstances, this Court opines
that there cannot be a blanket approval from this
Court to hold weekly meetings. However, with the
BIAAPA already stating that for congregational prayer
meet in an open land, no approval is required from
them, this Court is of the view that the eleventh
respondent must approach the jurisdictional Deputy
Commissioner, who has permitted a congregation
earlier, with all the details and the Deputy
Commissioner must ensure that there is an approval
in place but without violating the undertaking that is
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50991
WP No. 25220 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010557792026
given to this Court on the construction without an
approval from the third respondent and the Village
Panchayath.
The petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
NV