Karnataka HC Freezes Civic Amenity Site Allotment Made Before Application Deadline Expired
Justice B M Shyam Prasad granted status quo on a 2,484.81 sq m civic amenity site after finding the allotment resolution preceded the close of the application window.
The High Court of Karnataka, on 18 June 2026, directed all respondents to maintain status quo over a civic amenity site measuring 2,484.81 square metres after a prima facie finding that the resolution allotting the site was passed before the deadline for receiving applications had even expired. Justice B M Shyam Prasad, sitting singly at Bengaluru, passed the oral order in Padma Vijaya Foundation (PVF Foundation) v. State of Karnataka and Others, WP No. 15456/2026 (LB-RES). The petitioner, which had applied for the same site, argued that the third respondent's resolution of 14 January 2026 favouring the fourth respondent was issued prematurely, and that its own application had been received only after multiple refusals by the authorities.
The Allotment Dispute
A notification inviting applications for allotment of the civic amenity site was issued on 5 December 2025. The petitioner, Padma Vijaya Foundation (PVF Foundation), sought to apply but faced repeated refusals to receive its application. It was ultimately accepted on the ninetieth day — the last date scheduled for receipt of applications.
Despite the application window still being open, the third respondent passed a resolution on 14 January 2026 allotting the 2,484.81 square metre site to the fourth respondent. The petitioner challenged this resolution as Annexure-A to the writ petition, contending that the allotment was made before the deadline for receiving applications had lapsed, rendering the process irregular on its face.
Submissions on Interim Relief
Senior Counsel Sri M S Shyamsundar, appearing for the petitioner, pressed for an immediate interim order on two grounds. First, without court intervention, the respondents could execute the necessary documents and hand over possession of the site to the fourth respondent, making any eventual relief infructuous. Second, the fourth respondent is an organisation represented by an elected Member from the concerned legislative seat, raising a concern about the circumstances in which the allotment decision was taken.
Court's Reasoning
Justice Shyam Prasad found a prima facie case on the petitioner's submissions. The core concern was the timing: the resolution to allot the site was dated 14 January 2026, yet the last date for receiving applications had not passed at that point. The court held that there should be “no precipitation when this Court is seized of the circumstances” in which the allotment decision was taken.
The risk of precipitation — execution of documents and delivery of possession before the writ petition could be heard — weighed in favour of granting immediate status quo. The court did not express any final view on the merits but considered the sequence of events sufficient to warrant protection of the subject site pending further hearing.
Order
The court granted an interim order directing all respondents to maintain status quo as regards the subject civic amenity site in every aspect, including consequential documentation, with effect from 18 June 2026.
Sri Bopanna Belliappa, Additional Government Advocate, accepted notice on behalf of the first respondent, the State of Karnataka. Emergent Notice was issued returnable by 14 August 2026 to the remaining respondents. The matter is listed for further hearing on that date.