Leprosy Rehab Society Wins 15-Year Lease Renewal For Bengaluru School And Rehabilitation Centre: Karnataka HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the endorsement refusing renewal of the lease and the subsequent communication were liable to be quashed, having regard to the petitioner’s use of the land and the grounds stated by the authorities.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the endorsement dated 14 January 2022 and the letter dated 7 March 2022.

It also directed

It directed the competent authorities to renew the lease for a further 15 years over 1 acre 33 guntas in Sy. No. 36, and directed the petitioner to pay any arrears of rent within one month of receiving the certified copy of the order.

01Facts

The petitioner-society had received a 30-year lease in 1959 over 9 acres 18 guntas in Sy. No. 36, Munnekolalu Village, to establish a centre for persons affected by leprosy. The lease was extended in 1991 for a further 30 years.

pp. 4–6

After portions of the original land were allotted to other organisations, 1 acre 33 guntas in Sy. No. 36 remained with the petitioner, which operated a rehabilitation centre and educational institutions there.

pp. 11–13

Following earlier proceedings concerning cancellation of the lease and a separate petition challenging the transfer of the land, the Tahsildar issued an endorsement dated 14 January 2022 rejecting the petitioner’s request for renewal, followed by a letter dated 7 March 2022.

pp. 2–3, 6–9

The petitioner challenged both communications under Articles 226 and 227, alleging, among other things, that rent had been tendered and the relevant educational activities and construction had been authorised.

pp. 2–3, 6–9

The State maintained that the lease had expired and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy.

pp. 10–11

02Issues

i.1. Whether the endorsement refusing renewal of the lease and the subsequent communication were liable to be quashed, having regard to the petitioner’s use of the land and the grounds stated by the authorities.

pp. 7–9, 13–15

ii.2. Whether the petitioner should be relegated to an alternative remedy, or whether the High Court could grant relief under Articles 226 and 227 in the circumstances.

pp. 10–11, 14–15

03Law Applied

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 and the rule that the existence of an alternative remedy does not invariably bar writ relief, particularly in exceptional circumstances; it relied on State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86, Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1, and Varala Bharath Kumar v. State of Telangana, (2017) 9 SCC 413.

p. 15

The petitioner also relied on Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, (2025) 11 SCC 808, concerning writ intervention despite an alternative remedy, and Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, (2024) 10 SCC 533, on the need for an opportunity of hearing; these were advanced as submissions.

pp. 9–10

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner had operated on the land since 1959 for the stated rehabilitation purpose, and that the land remaining with it was only 1 acre 33 guntas, on which it had established a rehabilitation centre and educational facilities.

pp. 12–15

It accepted the petitioner’s account that rent had been tendered and noted that the authorities had permitted the relevant school activities. In that context, it held that the endorsement’s stated grounds—including lease-condition violations—did not justify cancellation, particularly where the alleged unauthorised school activity was inconsistent with permissions granted by the authorities.

pp. 12–15

Given the society’s long-standing work for persons affected by leprosy and the circumstances of the case, the Court declined to require exhaustion of an alternative remedy.

p. 15