PIL challenged government decision to allot land for judges’ quarters project
BENGALURU
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the state government’s decision to transfer seven acres of land belonging to the Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University (KVAFSU) in Hebbal for the construction of judges’ quarters and a super-specialty hospital.
The PIL was jointly filed by the Karnataka Veterinary Association, Bengaluru Veterinary College Alumni Association and two other organisations, questioning a government order issued on January 8, 2026. The order directed the transfer of four acres of land adjacent to Nyayagrama for residential quarters for High Court judges and another three acres for a super-specialty hospital.
A division bench comprising Justice D.K. Singh and Justice T.M. Nadaf upheld the government’s decision, observing that the transfer of land was a policy matter and did not warrant judicial interference.
“The transfer of 4+3 acres, totalling seven acres, is a policy decision for construction of residences for High Court judges and a super-specialty hospital for the general public,” the bench noted. The court reiterated that policy decisions are generally beyond judicial review unless they are arbitrary, procedurally flawed or contrary to law.
The petitioners had argued that the transfer would adversely affect the veterinary college’s teaching, research and extension activities. They also expressed concerns that the reduction in land could impact the institution’s recognition by the Veterinary Council of India and affect future accreditation assessments.
However, after examining relevant regulations and records, the court found that a veterinary college is required to maintain around 150 acres of land. KVAFSU currently possesses approximately 278 acres, and even after the transfer of seven acres, the university would continue to have significantly more land than the prescribed minimum.
“The transfer of seven acres out of about 278 acres will not, in any manner, affect the minimum land requirements under the regulations,” the bench observed.
The court also emphasised the importance of providing official accommodation to judges, describing it as an essential component of judicial independence. It noted that only 19 official residences are currently available for High Court judges against the sanctioned strength of 62, forcing many judges to stay in rented accommodation.
Regarding the proposed hospital, the bench held that the project would serve a larger public purpose by enhancing access to advanced healthcare services. Concluding that both projects were in the broader public interest, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the land transfer.
