WRIT APPEALS FILED BY NAMMA WHITEFIELD AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

COURT UPDATE | PATTANDUR AGRAHARA LAKE

The two appeals concerning the Pattandur Agrahara Lake matter — WA 2017/2025 filed by Namma Whitefield RWA Federation and WA 1861/2026 filed by the State of Karnataka — are listed for hearing today, 14 August 2026, before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.

📍 Court Hall No. 4
⚖️ Hon'ble Justice D.K. Singh & Hon'ble Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan

These appeals challenge the earlier order in the lake encroachment/fraud proceedings.

Save Pattandur Agrahara Lake! 🌳💧

-----------------------------------------------------

UPDATE OF PROCEEDINGS: 

High Court Reserves Judgment in Pattandur Agrahara Lake Matter in Whitefield

The Division Bench heard detailed arguments from the lawyers representing both the appellants and the respondents. AAG Shri Kiran Ron appeared on behalf of the State, while Shri Manu Kulkarni appeared on behalf of the appellant, Namma Whitefield.

The principal arguments advanced by the appellants were that the Single Judge’s dismissal of the petition on grounds of limitation and res judicata was erroneous, for the following reasons:

1. Alleged fraud, and the principle that “fraud vitiates all”

The appellants contended that the alleged Land Tribunal order relied upon by the claimant to assert rights over the lake land was obtained through fraud and is therefore non est in law.

They argued that:

- Nullity of orders: A judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on a court has no legal sanctity and can be challenged even at a later stage, including in collateral proceedings.
- Limitation and finality: The principles of limitation and finality of litigation cannot, according to the appellants, be invoked to protect an order alleged to have been procured through fraud.
- Power to correct fraud: Courts possess inherent powers to recall or set aside orders where it is established that the judicial process was obtained through fraud, deliberate concealment or misrepresentation.

2. Res judicata and protection of water bodies

The appellants further argued that res judicata does not apply because several substantial and material issues relating to the land and the alleged Land Tribunal order had not been adjudicated earlier.

Prominent among these is the settled legal principle that “once a water body, always a water body” - that the legal character and public nature of land serving as a water body cannot simply be extinguished through subsequent claims or orders concerning title. 

The appellants argued that this fundamental issue, along with the protection afforded to lakes and other water bodies under law, had not been properly adjudicated and therefore could not be shut out on the ground of res judicata. As also, whether the trial court had the authority to issue a decree, whether a land tribunal had authority to grant a lake, etc.,

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Bench directed all parties to submit written synopses of their arguments.

The matter has now been reserved for judgment.

-----------------------------------------------------

SUPPORT:

In case you'd like to support this campaign, as well as other campaigns, you are welcome to donate to our fundraiser : https://www.raisefree.com/c/asafa3zubab