VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Karnataka High Court 2026 › High Court of Karnataka

Bohra Hospital Housing Educational Cultural Social Charitable Trust v. Mysore Urban Development Authority

DISPOSED
Court
High Court of Karnataka
Decided
2 July 2026
Bench
Suraj Govindarajauthor
Case no.
WP 23488/2023

Follow Karnataka High CourtFollow Suraj Govindaraj

Judgment

NC:(2026:KHC:32996( WP(No.(23488(of(2023( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

NDDATED(THIS(THE(2 (DAY(OF(JULY,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(SURAJ(GOVINDARAJ( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(23488(OF(2023((LB-RES)( ( BETWEEN:((

(

1., BOHRA,HOSPITAL,HOUSING,, EDUCATIONAL,CULTURAL,SOCIAL,,

CHARITABLE,TRUST, A,,REGISTERED,TRUST,, OFFICE,AT,NO.,126,,BANNIMANTAPA, C,LAYOUT,,MYSURU,-,570,015, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,PRESIDENT,AND,,

MANAGING,TRUSTEE,, MR.,NOORUDDIN,JOHAR., INDIAN,TRUST,ACT,,1882, …,PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,VAISHAK,,ADVOCATE,FOR, ,,,,,,SRI,BHARGAVA,D,BHAT.,,ADVOCATE), ,,,, (

AND:( Digitallytisigned (by0SHWETHA

1., MYSORE,URBAN,DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY,RAGHAVENDRA JANSI,LAKSHMI,BAI,ROAD,, Location:0HIGH COURT0OF MYSURU,-,570,001, KARNATAKA REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,COMMISSIONER., ,

2., DEPARTMENT,OF,PUBLIC,LIBRARIES, TH4 ,FLOOR,,VISHVESHWARIAH,MAIN,TOWER,, DR,B,R,AMBEDKAR,VEEDHI,,, BANGALORE,-,560,001, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,DIRECTOR., …,RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,VIVEKANANDA,T,P.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1;, ,,,,,,SRI,SHAMANTH,NAIK,,HCGP,FOR,R2), ,

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD

23.04.2021 (OVER-WRITTEN ON THE ACTUAL DATE OF 16.04.2021) BEARING NO.¸ÀASÉå/ªÉÄÊ£À¥Áæ/£Á¸Ë£À/UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ/2021-22 PASSED BY THE R1 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

¶1The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) Issue a Writ of certiorari quashing the Order dated 23.04.2021 (over-written on the actual date of

16.04.2021) bearing No.¸ÀASÉå/ªÉÄÊ£À¥Áæ/£Á¸Ë£À/UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ/2021-22 passed by the Respondent No.1 (Annexure-A).

b) Pass any other as the Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.

¶2The facts in the present matter are identical to that in WP.No.21108/2e021 which has been disposed today i.e., on 02.07.2026.

¶3Only additional aspect in the present matter is the carving out of a separate site No.CA-3A to an extent of 556.31 square meters from and out of the site allotted to the petitioner in the year 1999, which is claimed to be allotted to one Sri Syed Ishak. It is in that background that the petitioner has challenged

the said allotment contending that the said property, having been allotted to the petitioner could not have been allotted to Sayed Ishak.

¶4A perusal of the papers would indicate that there is no allotment which has been made to Sayed Ishak but has been made to the Department of Public Libraries and a Public Library has already been established in the said site No.CA-3A measuring

556.31 square meters.

¶5Though the petitioner has succeeded in WP.No.21108/2021, the fact, however, remains that the petitioner, who has an allotment made in the year 1999, approached this Court in the year 2021 in respect of WP.No.21108/2021 and the allotment to the public libraries has been made on 23.04.2021 which has been challenged in WP.No.23488/2023.

¶6A public library having been established by respondent No.2-Department of Public Libraries and the said library being available for use to the general public, public money having been spent on the said establishment of a public library, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said allotment cannot be cancelled. This also being for the reason that the petitioner intends to establish an educational

institution. The educational institution and the students could also make use of the public library for their own benefit. This allotment would stand to the benefit of the students of the petitioner and the general public. Hence, this Court does not find any grounds to quash the allotment made to respondent No.2. It is, however, made clear that the said property shall always be used only for a public library and not be put for any other purpose.

¶7With the above observations, the petition stands disposed.

Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

KTY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Source: High Court of Karnataka, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.