38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, January 12, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

SC Adjourns Matter Against DK Shivakumar In Alleged Land Grabbing Case, Questions Locus Standi Of The Petitioners

By Lawstreet Bharat      07 January, 2020 06:01 PM      0 Comments
SC Adjourns Matter Against DK Shivakumar In Alleged Land Grabbing Case, Questions Locus Standi Of The Petitioners

The Supreme Court of India today (January 7, 2020) questioned the locus standi of the NGO Samaj Parivartana Samudaya in DK Shivakumars alleged land grabbing case. The NGO said that, We are not clear what happened to that complaint in Lok Ayukta. They also stated that they will file a detailed affidavit explaining their role in the present matter. 

The Apex Court has given two weeks to the petitioners and adjourned the matter for now.

Earlier, Karnataka minister D.K. Shivakumar opposed an NGOs efforts in the Supreme Court to re-open a land-grabbing case against him. The apex court had, on February 21, 2019, allowed the petitioner, Kabbale Gowda, to suddenly withdraw the case which had been pending for the past three years.

Post his withdrawal, SPS (Samaj Parivartana Samudaya), the NGO, represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan filed an application to re-call the order dated February 21, 2019. He also said that the petition had been compromised.

Mr. Bhushan said, Karnataka government has joined hands with these powerful accused persons. Eventually, private petitioners like Mr. Gowda have been compelled to withdraw their case, resulting in the NGO to take up the fight.

The case was withdrawn on February 21, 2019 without even informing the NGO, which was an intervenor. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for Mr. Shivakumar, questioned the locus standi of the NGO to seek a re-call of the withdrawal order of the court.

The case revolves around a piece of land measuring over five acres and dates back to 1962. The then-purchaser decided to convert the land use of over four acres from agricultural to industrial. The 

Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquired the land in 1986. Despite the acquisition , Mr. Shivakumar , who was then the urban development minister, purchased the land from the original owner for 1.62 crore in 2003.The petition said the land registration was done despite revenue documents showing that the land stood in BDAs name. According to the petition, Mr. Shivakumar  allegedly entered into joint agreements with other companies to develop the land in both 2004 and 2011.

Author: Swetalana Rout



Share this article:

About:
Follow:
FacebookTwitterLinkedinInstagram


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

wrong-bail-orders-alone-without-evidence-of-corruption-cannot-justify-removal-of-judicial-officer-sc
Trending Judiciary
Wrong Bail Orders Alone, Without Evidence of Corruption, Cannot Justify Removal of Judicial Officer: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that wrong bail orders alone cannot justify removal of a judicial officer without proof of corruption, misconduct, or extraneous considerations.

06 January, 2026 07:43 PM
divorced-muslim-woman-can-seek-maintenance-under-crpc-even-after-receiving-amount-under-muslim-women-protection-act-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Divorced Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance Under CrPC Even After Receiving Amount Under Muslim Women Protection Act: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court holds that a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even after receiving amounts under the 1986 Act.

06 January, 2026 08:19 PM
delhi-hc-full-bench-settles-bsf-seniority-dispute-rule-of-continuous-regular-appointment-prevails
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Full Bench Settles BSF Seniority Dispute; Rule of ‘Continuous Regular Appointment’ Prevails [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court Full Bench rules BSF seniority is based on date of continuous regular appointment, rejecting claims for antedated seniority due to delayed joining.

06 January, 2026 08:45 PM
borrowers-cannot-invoke-writ-jurisdiction-to-compel-banks-to-extend-one-time-settlement-benefits-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Borrowers Cannot Invoke Writ Jurisdiction to Compel Banks to Extend One-Time Settlement Benefits: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court holds borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks to grant One-Time Settlement benefits, as OTS is not a legal right.

07 January, 2026 09:22 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email