'How Does It Impact You?': Karnataka High Court Questions Kanakapura Bar Body Challenging Site Allotment Infront Of Trial Court Complex

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday [July 16] orally questioned the maintainability of a writ petition filed by the Advocates Bar Association of Kanakapura seeking to restrain the State government and local authorities from allotting sites in front of the newly constructed court complex at Kanakapura. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 250]

The court orally observed that if such a petition is entertained, it would lead to a situation where all layouts in front of court complexes across the State would have to be removed.

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj made the observations while hearing a writ petition filed by the Kanakapura Bar Association, which sought direction to the respondents to consider their representations dated May 27 and to refrain from allotting any sites in front of the court complex building situated at Kanakapura in Bengaluru.

“…How does it affect the court premises? If its [layout in front of court complex] construction is started and converted for commercial purpose, how does that impact you? what about government land, they should not form layout there…. It's not necessary.. Then we should remove all the layouts in front of all the court complexes?”, the court orally enquired.

The plea was eventually withdrawn by the Association.

“…The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs. After arguing for some time, the petitioner seeks to withdraw the above petition. Permission to file a PIL granted…reserving such liberty, petition stands disposed of,” the Court recorded in its order.

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Nataraj Baba K, contended that the municipal authorities and the Tahsildar were initiating proceedings to allot government land situated in front of the newly constructed court complex, in favour of private individuals. The petitioners argued that such allotment would be detrimental to the court premises and its functioning, and that the government land should be protected.

When the matter came up for hearing, Justice Govindaraj asked about the allotment process. The petitioners responded that the municipality and the Tahsildar were initiating the proceedings. The Court then asked how such an action could be stopped and questioned the basis of the petition, pointing out that the land in question was outside the court premises.

The petitioners in the matter were the Kanakapura Bar Association and its Secretary, while the respondents included the State Government, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Tahsildar, and the City Commissioner of Kanakapura.

Case Title: The Advocates Bar Association Kanakapura v. State of Karntaka

Case No: WP 21360/2026

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 250