Radha Soami Satsang Beas Must Approach Deputy Commissioner For Approval Before Weekly Prayer Meets, Karnataka HC Says

The petitioners, claiming ownership of lands in villages in Devanahalli Taluk, sought directions to public authorities to act against alleged unauthorised construction or development by respondent No. 11, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, over approximately 200 acres.

They alleged that the development lacked approvals required under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (KTCP Act)

The Court was informed that respondent No. 11 had applied to BIAAPA under Section 17(1) of the KTCP Act and had stopped construction; it also undertook not to resume construction without the necessary approvals.

The Court had previously allowed a planned congregation subject to police approval and the Deputy Commissioner’s permission, on the basis that no congregation would be held after 31 August 2026 without leave of the Court.

The Court considered Sections 14 and 17 of the KTCP Act in relation to development and the requirement for planning approval.

It proceeded on the basis that construction could not be undertaken without the necessary approval or permission from the Planning Authority and the concerned Village Panchayat.

The Court also addressed the proposed open-air congregations in light of BIAAPA’s position that such meetings did not require its approval, while requiring respondent No. 11 to obtain the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner’s approval for any further meetings.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court did not decide the petitioners’ locus or determine whether the past works amounted to temporary activity or development under the KTCP Act; it expressly left those questions open.

In view of respondent No. 11’s application to BIAAPA and its undertaking not to undertake further construction without approvals, the Court disposed of the petition while requiring BIAAPA to examine the application strictly in accordance with law and without delay.

As BIAAPA stated that an open-air prayer meeting did not require its approval, the Court declined to grant blanket permission for weekly meetings and instead directed respondent No. 11 to approach the Deputy Commissioner with details and obtain approval consistent with its undertaking concerning construction.

BIAAPA was required to consider respondent No. 11’s application strictly in accordance with law and promptly; respondent No. 11 was not to undertake construction without the required Planning Authority and Village Panchayat approvals.

No blanket approval was granted for weekly prayer meetings; respondent No. 11 was required to seek the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner’s approval for them.