The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed a PIL petition which had challenged the State government’s January 8, 2026, decision for transferring four acres of pristine land of the Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University to construct additional 20 quarters as an annexe for the Nyaya Grama, the existing residential quarters for judges of the High Court, and another three acres to build a super-speciality hospital.

A Division Bench comprising Justice D.K. Singh and Justice T.M. Nadaf refused to interfere with the government’s decision while dismissing the petition filed by the Karnataka Veterinary Association, Bangalore Veterinary College Alumni Association, and Dairy Science College Alumni Association.

What petitioners say

The petitioners had argued that the land transfer would impair compliance with the Veterinary Council of India norms regarding minimum land requirements and jeopardise research activities. They contended the college barely met mandatory infrastructure standards.

However, the Bench rejected these contentions, noting that the veterinary college possesses approximately 317.73 acres, and that the government had admitted that the veterinary and dairy sciences colleges have lands in excess of huge extent of land to meet their requirements.

“The decision taken by the government to transfer four acres of land for the construction of official residences for the serving judges of the High Court in the vicinity of the existing 15 residences at Nyaya Grama will have no adverse effect, in any manner, as alleged,” the Bench observed.

Policy decision

The Bench held that it cannot interfere with policy decision for allotment of lands in the absence of any arbitrariness in the process while observing that “the allotment of four acres of land which is adjacent to the Nyaya Grama in any manner will impede or is against the public interest, but it is in furtherance of the larger public interest i.e., to ensure the independence of the judiciary which is the basic foundation of the Constitution.” The Bench noted that there are no official quarters for a majority of the judges of the High Court.

In fact, the larger public interest would be served by having a super-speciality hospital for general public by the State, the Bench said, while pointing out that no public interest is abridged or acted against in providing four acres of land to the High Court for the construction of official residences to the judges and three acres of land for constructing the super-specialty hospital for general public.