- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3488 WP No. 12255 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 12255 OF 2023 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: SHREE GURU RAGHAVENDRA VIDYA SAMSTHE 6TH CROSS, NEAR HP GAS GODOWN CHANNAPATNA HASSAN-573201 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI SHIVANNA B REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIKANTH M P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NEW PUBLIC OFFICES Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3488 WP No. 12255 of 2023 NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS PRIMARY EDUCATION NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCITONS HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 27.03.2023 OF THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-M (E 831068 DPI CP 10C7 1 (SCLC)/4/2022) QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 17.11.2022 OF THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-N (E 823099 DPI CP 10C7 1 (SCLC)/4/2022) QUASH THE LETTER BEARING NO ANU 3 PRA SHI AA ATALANTHARA 42/2021-22 DTD 05.04.2023 ADDRESSED BY THE R-4 TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNX-P, QUASH THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO. C5/KA AA PRA SHA /MU BA /07/2021-22 DTD 19.04.2023 ADDRESSED BY THE R-5 TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNX-V. FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL FOR SHIFTING OF THE INSTITUTION AS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 30.09.2021 AND 16.01.2023 VIDE ANNX-J AND J1. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3488 WP No. 12255 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: (i) quash the endorsement dated 27.03.2023 of respondent No.3 vide Annexure “M” (ii) quash the endorsement dtd 17.11.2022 of respondent No.3 vide Annexure “N” (iii) quash the letter bearing No.Anu.3.Pra.Shi Aa.Stalanthara.42/2021-22 dated 05.04.2023 addressed by respondent No.4 to 5th respondent vide Annexure ‘P’. (iv) quash the communication dated 19.04.2023 addressed by respondent No.5 to the petitioner vide Annexure ‘V’. (v) direct the respondent to consider the proposal for shifting of the institution as submitted by the petitioner on 30.09.2021 and 16.01.2023 vide Annexure ‘J’ and ‘J1’.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3488 WP No. 12255 of 2023 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner is a Society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1960. Initially, the petitioner Society got registered for running a school for I to V standards in Kannada Medium in 2010 and the same was permitted to be converted into English Medium vide Circular dated 02.12.2015 issued by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions. 4. During the period of COVID-19 pandemic, a decision had to be taken to shift the institution from Hosa line Road, North Layout, Javenahalli Mutt, Hassan to Channapattna, Hassan. The Institution has provided the necessary information for the consideration of the respondents-Authority on 22.12.2022 contending that since the Institution was started prior to 2014, the requirement for having half an acre of land was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3488 WP No. 12255 of 2023 not be applicable to them. Respondent No.4 forwarded the proposal to respondent No.3 directly as per the letter dated 15.02.2023. However, the Director issued an endorsement dated 27.03.2023 rejecting the proposal for shifting. 5. Pursuant to rejection of the proposal submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.5 issued an Official Memorandum dated 19.04.2023 directing the closure of petitioner's institution, failing which it was threatened that action would be initiated against the management of the institution. Thus, the petitioner aggrieved by the official memorandum dated 19.04.2023, and endorsement dated 27.03.2023, filed this writ petition. 6. The State has filed a statement of objections contending that the school's building, in which classes were run before, had collapsed. Hence, the school had been shifted from Hosa Line Road to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3488 WP No. 12255 of 2023 North Layout Javenhalli Mutt, Hassan to Channapattna, Hassan, which means, from one Ward to another, without permission of the Department and it is contended that, as per the norms for sanctioning a new school, the land must measure a minimum of 2,000 square meters and must be converted by the Deputy Commissioner to the educational purpose. Thus, the petitioner has not fulfilled the norms and hence, the respondents have rightly issued the impugned endorsement dated 27.03.2023 and also the official memorandum dated 19.04.2023. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.105637 of 2022 disposed of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3488 WP No. 12255 of 2023 on 13.12.2022 (Sri.Akshay Ramchand Jamnani vs. The State of Karnataka and others), if the land falls within the municipal corporation limits, there is no requirement to obtain permission under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, for diverting the land in question for non-agricultural purpose. 9. He also submitted that the requirement under Rule 5 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) Rules, 1995 (for short, ‘the 1995 Rules’) is not applicable to the Institutions established upto the Academic Year 2017-18. He submitted that the petitioner’s Institution was established in 2010 and as per the second proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 5, the requirement under Rule 5 does not apply to the petitioner's Institution. The respondents without considering the second proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 has issued the impugned endorsement. He also submitted that without - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3488 WP No. 12255 of 2023 considering the decision rendered by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the respondents have has passed the impugned endorsement and official memorandum. 10. He also submitted that the existing building was in a dilapidated condition and was not in a position to run the school. Hence, the petitioner sought for shifting of school and produced all the relevant records. The respondents committed an error in issuing the impugned endorsement and the official memorandum. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 11. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioner has filed an application for shifting the school. But the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules. He submits that the respondents have rightly issued the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3488 WP No. 12255 of 2023 impugned endorsement and official memorandum and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 12. I have perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner obtained the necessary permissions of the concerned authorities and started running the school from class I to class V in Kannada medium in 2010 and same was permitted to be converted into English medium in 2015. 14. The building in which the petitioner was running the school earlier was in a dilapidated condition and it was unfit for human use. The petitioner submitted an application for shifting of school and produced the records along with application. The said application was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the said land is not converted for non-agricultural - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3488 WP No. 12255 of 2023 purpose and it does not measure 2000 square meters. 15. Admittedly, the land, to which the petitioner- Institution is proposed to be shifted, comes within the Municipal Corporation limits. In view of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.105637 of 2022 in the case of Akshay Ramchand Jamnani v. the State of Karnataka and others, wherein this Court held that there is no requirement to obtain a permission under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, for diverting the land in question for non-agricultural purpose. 16. In view of the order passed by this Court, there is no requirement to obtain necessary permission for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land if the land is situated within the Corporation area. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3488 WP No. 12255 of 2023 17. The respondents have not denied that the proposed area does not come within the limits of corporation. The respondents have committed an error in directing the petitioner to convert the land into non- agricultural land. The respondents have also issued an endorsement stating that the proposed land does not measure 2,000 square metres as per the 2nd proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the 1995 Rules. 18. According to which, if an educational institution wants to establish itself within the limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and other Municipal Corporation areas, the extent of land must be 2,000 square meters as per Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 5 of the 1995 Rules. 19. The second proviso to sub-Rule 4 of Rule 5 of the 1995 Rules reads as follows: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3488 WP No. 12255 of 2023 “Provided further that, the above requirement of land shall not be applicable to the existing educational institutions started with due registration upto the Academic Year 2017-18, except the extent of land prescribed in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.” 20. Admittedly, the petitioner’s educational institution was started for the Academic Year 2010-11. As per 2nd proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 5, the extent of land shown in sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 is not applicable to the petitioner's institution. Petitioner's institution was established in 2010-11. Without considering the 2nd proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 5, the respondents have issued the impugned endorsement and Official Memorandum. The Official Memorandum and endorsement issued by the respondents are contrary to the order passed by this Court in Akshay Ramchand Jamnani referred supra and 2nd proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the 1995 Rules. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3488 WP No. 12255 of 2023 21. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDERS (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 27.03.2023 vide Annexures “M” and the official memorandum dated 19.04.2023 vide Annexure ‘V’ are hereby quashed; (iii) The respondents are directed to consider the applications submitted by the petitioner vide Annexures “J” and “J1” and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36