The Congress-led government in Karnataka has made a controversial decision to allocate land valued at approximately Rs 255 crore in Bengaluru to 22 mutts (religious institutions) belonging to Dalit and Other Backward Classes (OBC) communities. This move comes despite explicit warnings and red flags raised by several key state departments, including finance, and law and parliamentary affairs, which cautioned against the potential legal ramifications of such a grant.
Departments Raise Legal Concerns Over Land Allocation
Internal documents reviewed by sources reveal that the finance department, along with the law and parliamentary affairs department, strongly advised against the decision. Their primary concern centered on the classification of the land in question as gomala (village common land), which, under existing laws, cannot be alienated or transferred to private organizations. The departments highlighted that such actions could attract significant legal scrutiny and potentially violate Supreme Court directives aimed at preserving public land for communal use.
Supreme Court Directives Cited in Objections
The state government departments referenced several landmark Supreme Court cases in their objections, including the 2011 judgment in Jagpal Singh and others vs State of Punjab and the 2001 ruling in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs Kamal Devi and others. These cases emphasize the imperative to protect poramboku, gomala, kharabu, and waterbodies for public welfare, strictly prohibiting their diversion for private purposes. Additionally, the departments noted that the proposed land parcels fall within 18 kilometers of the erstwhile Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) headquarters, further complicating the legality of the grant under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules of 1969.
Details of the Land Grant and Government Justification
The government approved the allocation last week, responding to appeals made by seers from Dalit and Backward Classes communities in early 2025. These religious leaders had sought land and assistance to operate philanthropic institutions in Bengaluru. Specifically, the president and general secretary of the Backward Dalit Mathadeeshwarara Okkuta, Bengaluru, requested land for 22 mutts located in Ravuttanahalli, Dasanapura, within the Bangalore North district.
The granted land comprises two major parcels: approximately 34 acres and 9 guntas on Survey No. 57, and another 18 acres and 5 guntas on Survey No. 58. Each mutt is slated to receive between 20 guntas and four acres, with the allocation size dependent on factors such as the institution's scale, follower base, and extent of social work activities.
Financial and Procedural Concerns Highlighted
The finance department raised additional concerns regarding the land's valuation. According to guidance values, the land is estimated at Rs 1 crore per acre. However, if converted but left undeveloped, its value could rise to Rs 1.8 crore per acre, and if fully developed, it might reach an astounding Rs 4.8 crore per acre. Revenue officials also pointed out that some of the mutts receiving land are of recent origin and lack a verifiable track record of philanthropic work, casting doubts on the legitimacy of their claims.
Government Response and Broader Implications
Despite these objections, senior ministers within the government dismissed the departments' concerns as "nothing new," arguing that similar opinions are routinely expressed for most land-grant requests. This stance underscores a potential pattern of overriding bureaucratic advice in favor of political or community-driven decisions.
The Karnataka Land Grant Rules of 1969 explicitly state that government land within city limits should not be granted to individuals or private institutions and must be reserved for public purposes. The departments concluded that "there is no provision for granting the land," making this decision particularly contentious from a legal and regulatory perspective.
This development highlights ongoing tensions between administrative prudence and political expediency in land allocation matters, especially in a rapidly urbanizing city like Bengaluru. It also raises questions about the balance between supporting marginalized communities and adhering to legal frameworks designed to protect public assets.
