Karnataka High Court Orders Status Quo On Civic Amenity Site Allotted To Educational Trust Purportedly Linked To MLA

Granting interim relief to Padma Vijaya Foundation, the Karnataka High Court last week ordered status quo on the allotment of a prime civic amenity (CA) site to 'Parishrama Educational Trust', which is purportedly founded by the sitting Congress MLA of Chikkaballapur- Pradeep Eshwar.

The single judge bench of Justice B.M Shyama Prasad heard the plea filed by the not-for-profit petitioner, an educational organisation, regarding the allotment of CA site admeasuring 2484.81 sq. meters via a resolution passed by the Chikkaballapur Urban Development Authority (CUDA) on January 14, 2026.

The resolution had allegedly allotted three CA sites conjointly measuring 6,361.16 sq. meters in the layout at Beedaganahalli Village to the Respondent No. 4 Educational Trust.

“…finding a prima facie case, this Court is of the opinion that there should be no precipitation when this Court is seized of the circumstances in which the decision is taken to allot the subject civic amenity site in favour of the fourth respondent. Hence, the interim order is granted directing the respondents to maintain status quo as regards the subject civic amenity site in every aspect including the consequential documentation effective from today”, the court said and posted the matter to August 14.

The Court has also issued notice to the State Government and the Chikkaballapur Urban Development Authority (CUDA), along with the respondent Parishrama Trust, in the plea alleging arbitrariness in allotment of CUDA CA Site to the institution allegedly controlled by the MLA who won from the constituency where such sites are situated.

Appearing for the petitioner organisation, Senior Counsel M Shyam Sundar argued that the impugned CUDA resolution was passed even prior to the expiry of the 90-day window mentioned in the preliminary notification inviting applications. The invitation to apply was notified on December 5 last year whereas the land was allegedly allotted on January 14, 2026 before the expiry of time window ending on March 5, 2026.

Secondly, it was contended that the CUDA refused to receive the petitioner organisation's application for the same sites since they were allotted to Parishrama Trust. These applications were received only after a formal written legal demand was made to CUDA, that too on the last possible date [90^th day] for submission, the counsel contended.

“…Officials of Respondent No. 2 [CUDA] had initially refused to accept our applications, openly stating that the CA sites had 'already been allotted to Parishrama Trust.. This oral communication during the currency of the application window itself was irrefutable evidence that the allotment had been predetermined…”, the plea before the court states.

Moreover, the counsel pressed for an interim relief alleging there is probability of 'precipitation by execution of necessary documents and delivery of possession in favour of Parishrama Educational Trust which could render any permanent relief illusory'.

Further, Parishrama Trust had already made deposits towards the CA Sites allotment on January 12, even before the actual allotment indicating that the outcome of the CUDA Board Meeting was already known to the 4^th respondent, contended the counsel.

“…The allotment of Civic Amenity sites, being public property vested in a statutory authority, is governed by the public trust doctrine. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were obligated to ensure transparency, fairness, and objective consideration of all eligible applicants…”, the petition argues.

Padma Vijaya Foundation approached the High Court challenging the CUDA resolution citing violation of Articles 14 (Equality) and 19(1)(g) (Freedom to practice profession) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had also argued that there is malice in law and colourable exercise of power since the Respondent No.4's founder allegedly wielded enormous political influence as a sitting MLA.

Along with a Certiorari to quash the CUDA Board Resolution in favour of R4 Trust dated January 14, 2026, the petitioner educational trust has also asked for a mandamus directing CUDA and its Commissioner to evaluate the Petitioner's applications strictly on its own merits.

Case Title: Padma Vijaya Foundation v. State of Karntaka & Ors.

Case No: WP NO. 15456/2026

Click Here To Read/ Download Order