Karnataka HC Upholds Transfer of 7 Acres of Hebbal Veterinary University Land
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition 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, Bengaluru.
The court's decision clears the way for the government to use the land for judges' residential quarters and a super-specialty hospital.
The division bench, comprising Justice DK Singh and Justice TM Nadaf, ruled that the land transfer was a government policy decision and found no grounds for judicial interference. The bench observed that courts generally do not interfere with policy decisions unless they are arbitrary, procedurally flawed, or contrary to the law.
The legal dispute originated from a January 8, 2026, government order. This order directed the transfer of four acres of land at the veterinary college campus in Hebbal, adjacent to Nyayagrama, for residential quarters for High Court judges. The remaining three acres were allocated for the construction of a super-specialty hospital.
The PIL challenging this order was jointly filed by the Karnataka Veterinary Association, the Bengaluru Veterinary College Alumni, and two other organisations. The petitioners argued that the land transfer would adversely affect the veterinary college's teaching, research, and extension activities. They also raised concerns that the reduction in land could impact the institution's recognition by the Veterinary Council of India and its future accreditation assessments.
However, the High Court rejected these arguments after examining the institution's land records. The bench noted that under applicable regulations, a veterinary college is required to have around 150 acres of land. Because KVAFSU currently holds approximately 278 acres in Hebbal, the court concluded that transferring seven acres would not affect the minimum land requirements prescribed under the regulations.
Addressing the planned judicial housing, the bench stated that providing fully furnished official accommodation to High Court and Supreme Court judges is a responsibility of the state and an important aspect of ensuring judicial independence. The court noted that only 19 official residences are currently available for High Court judges in the state, despite a total strength of 62 judges, forcing several to live in rented accommodation.
Regarding the hospital project, the court ruled that allotting three acres for a super-specialty hospital would serve the larger public interest. Consequently, the bench rejected the petition, stating that both proposed projects are in the public interest.
