Bengaluru High Court Rejects PIL Seeking Demolition of Koramangala Passport Seva Kendra
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought the demolition of the Passport Seva Kendra (PSK) building in Koramangala, Bengaluru, and the recovery of the land on which it stands. The petition was filed by the Dr BR Ambedkar Youth Social and Cultural Welfare Trust, which claimed the PSK was constructed on land originally earmarked as a playground.
Petitioner's Arguments and Legal Basis
The petitioner argued that the Passport Seva Kendra occupies 1.3 acres of land that was initially designated as a playfield. They contended that this land was allotted to the Central government for a project located approximately 1.5 kilometers away. Citing the Karnataka Parks, Play-Fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, the trust asserted that land classified as a park or playground cannot be diverted for any other purpose, emphasizing the need to preserve open spaces in the city.
Central Government's Defense and Correction of Records
Opposing the plea, the Central government clarified that an error in the survey numbers mentioned in a government notification dated November 19, 1994—which the petitioner relied upon—had been corrected through an amendment notification issued on January 25, 2023. It was submitted that the three acres allotted for the PSK belonged to the public works department (PWD) and was lawfully transferred to the central government, ensuring the project's legitimacy.
Court's Ruling and Observations
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha rejected the petitioner's claims. The bench observed that the foundation of the PIL was based on an incorrect assumption, which no longer held good in view of the amended government order. While acknowledging concerns over the shrinking of open spaces in Bengaluru, the court held that the Centre could not be restrained from using land validly allotted to it.
The bench also noted that the petitioner had failed to produce zonal plans to establish that the land was designated as a playground or open space, further weakening their case. This dismissal underscores the importance of accurate documentation and legal procedures in land-use disputes.
