- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6105-DB WP No. 6651 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 6651 OF 2020 (KLR-RES-PIL) BETWEEN: 1. SRI VITHAL S/O LATE SHIVAYOGAPPA TELI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SRI MAHADEV S/O LATE SHIDGOUND HALALI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 3. SRI ANAND S/O LATE SRI HUCHCHAPPA CHINIWAL AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 4. SRI MAHESH S/O LATE BASAWARAJ ANATPUR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 5. SRI MALLAPPA S/O LATE GURUPPA YADAWAD AGED ABOUT 71 YEAWRS 6. SRI RUDRAPASHUPATI S/O LATE PARVATAYYA HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 7. SIR PRAVEEN S/O LATE SANGABASAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6105-DB WP No. 6651 of 2020 8. SRI BASAWARAJ S/O LATE SRI MALLANAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 9. SRI ASHOK S/O LATE SRI KALLAPPA DESAI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 10. SRI GARAPPA S/O LATE SRI KULAPPA GOTYAL AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 11. SRI BASAPPA S/O LATE SRI SOMANNA MODI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 12. SRI BASAWARAJ S/O LATE SRI SOMANNA MODI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 13. SRI VIKAS S/O LATE SRI CHANABASAPA DESAI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 14. SRI BASAWARAJ S/O LATE SRI GIRIMALLA MALAJI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 15. SRI BASAWARAJ S/O LATE SRI MURIGEPPA KORI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 16. SRI BASAWARAJ S/O LATE SRI SHANKAR BIJIARAGI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 17. SRI SANGAPPA S/O LATE SHIVASAPPA PATTANASHETTI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 18. SRI SADANAND S/O LATE MARIGEPPA GUDDAD AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6105-DB WP No. 6651 of 2020 19. SRI SHIVANAND S/O LATE SRI RAMANA HATTARAKI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 20. SRI CHANABASAPPA S/O LATE SRI BASAPPA MASALI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 21. SRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE SRI BHIMASHYA CHAVAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MALLIKARJUN NAGAR VIJAYAPUR - 586 103 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF URBAN VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHAN SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI - 590 002 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYAPURA - 586 101 5. THE COMMISSIONER CITY CORPORATION OF VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT VIJAPUR - 586 101 6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VIJAYAPURU - 586 101 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6105-DB WP No. 6651 of 2020 7. THE THASILDAR VIJAYAPURA TALUK VIJAYAPURA - 580 001 8. SRI GOPALA KARAJOLA S/O GOVINDA KARAJOLA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT GANGBAVADI VIJAYAPURA CITY - 580 001 9. SRI. PRABHU GOWDA S/O. PADAMA GOWDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT MALLIKARJUNA NAGAR VIJAYAPURA CITY - 580 001 10. SMT. MADEVI SHANKARA GOUDA PATIL W/O. SHANKARA GOWDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT MALLIKARJUNA NAGAR VIJAYAPURA CITY - 580 001 11. SRI. SHIVASHARANA ARALAIAH VIDVARDHAKA ANDHARA SAMSTHE REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT MALLIKARJUNA NAGAR VIJAYAPURA CITY - 580 001 …RESPONDENTS (SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE MUTATION BEARING NO. MR C/25594 HEREWITH PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.7 BY DELETING THE NAME OF PRESIDENT SRI SHIVAYOGI HARALAYYA-SRI SHIVASHARANA HARALAYYA VIDYA VARDHAK ANDARA SANSTHE, VIJAYAPURA, RESPONDENT No.11 FROM THE MUTATION AND RTC AND TO RESTORE THE NAME OF RESPONDENT No.5-THE COMMISSIONER, CITY CORPORATION OF VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6105-DB WP No. 6651 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Filed on 19.03.2020, this public interest petition comes up on Board for consideration after a gap of five years before the court today. Yet the petitioners claim to be vigilant public spirited villagers. 2. It is projected in the petition that the petitioners are for promotion of public interest in respect of the reserved open space Plot No.115 in Survey No.39/1 situated at Mahal Bagayath, Vijayapura. The case is that agricultural land bearing aforesaid survey number was converted into non-agricultural residential purpose, by order dated 28.04.1975 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. After the conversion, it was renumbered as RS No.39/1 + 2 Mahalbagayat, Vijayapura. 3. Said Plot No.115 was kept reserved as open space. It is claimed that the said plot was transferred in favour of the City Municipal Council, Vijayapura. It is stated that in 1985, the plot - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6105-DB WP No. 6651 of 2020 came under the purview of the provisions of the Karnataka Parks, Play-Fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulations) Act, 1985. 3.1 It is stated that the City Municipal Council, Vijayapura passed Resolution No.231 dated 14.05.2001 and leased out area admeasuring 20000 sq. yards from open space in the said Plot No.155 in favour of one Prabhugouda Padmagouda Patil for a period of five years. It is further stated that the area admeasuring 2000 sq. yards in the said Plot 115 has been sold by the Commissioner of the City Municipal Council, Vijayapura- respondent No.5 for a consideration of Rs.12,750/- by a Registered Sale Deed dated 19.04.2002 in favour of respondent No.11 herein who is President of Sri Shvasharan Haralayya Vidya Vardaka Andhar Sansthe, Vijayapura. Pursuant to the sale deed, the name of respondent No.11 has been mutated in the revenue records. 4. It is in light and the premise of the pleadings that the petitioners have prayed that the mutation entry may be quashed by deleting the name of respondent No.11 and the name of respondent No.5-the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Vijayapura may be inserted. It is prayed to take necessary criminal - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6105-DB WP No. 6651 of 2020 action against the officers who are involved in the act of alienating the portion of the said open space. 5. As stated above, the petition was filed as back as in 2020. In public interest litigation, conduct of the petitioners and vigilance on their part matters. The petitioners have sat tight and remained in slumber for five years. They did not care to see that the matter comes before the Court. The lethargy and indolence on part of the petitioners are reflected. The public interest litigants who are not vigilant have not right to seek relief in the public interest jurisdiction. 5.1 Above aspect apart, the prayer in the petition is only to set aside the mutation entry on the ground that the portion of Plot No.115 could not have been sold since it was open space. The averments made by the petitioners themselves in paragraph 8 of the petition indicates that the sale deed has been executed in favour of the private respondent No.11. The petitioners have not made any prayer for setting aside the sale deed. The ownership has already been transferred. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6105-DB WP No. 6651 of 2020 5.2 Even otherwise, the prayer to set aside the sale deed cannot be granted in the writ jurisdiction. Considered from any stand, the petition is filed in a slipshod manner with prayer which could not be granted in the writ jurisdiction and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. It is observed that dismissal of the public interest petition would not take away the rights of the parties who stand affected by any legal injury to pursue their individual remedies in the said matter. 7. The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4