- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4186 WP No. 1866 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 1866 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. B C MALLIKARJUNA S/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT. MARKET ROAD, SAGAR SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401 REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SMT. PUSHPALATHA, W/O B.C. MALLIKHARJUNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VARUN JAYKUMAR PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA-577201 2. THE CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577401 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. SRI U C SIDDALINGESHWAR, S/O SB CHANNAVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS MARKET ROAD, SAGAR SHIMOGA DIST -577401 4. SRI U C SANGAMESHWAR S/O SB CHANNAVEERAPPA Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4186 WP No. 1866 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS MARKET ROAD, SAGAR SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577401 5. SRI U C BASVESH S/O SB CHANNAVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS MARKET ROAD, SAGAR SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577401 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI.V., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. VISHWANATH.R.HEGDE., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 SRI. A.P.PULAKESHI., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3 TO 5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, R-1 IN CASE NO. JNAKO(2) CC/02/2024-25 DATED: 06.01.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, by which, the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal filed by respondents 3 to 5 and has set aside the licence granted to the petitioner and has also ordered that said order would be subject to the ultimate result of the original suit that is pending between the parties. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4186 WP No. 1866 of 2025 2. It is not in dispute that respondents 3 to 5 have instituted a suit in O.S.No.134/2022 in which they have not only sought for declaration of title, but also sought for possession of the property, which was the subject matter of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. It was their case that the petitioner had encroached upon the portion of their property and therefore, the building licence ought not to have been granted to the petitioner. 3. It is relevant to note here that in the appeal filed earlier by respondents 3 to 5 challenging the licence granted to the petitioner to put up a compound wall, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an interim order, aggrieved by which, respondents 3 to 5 have approached this Court in W.P.No.53070/2024 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Deputy Commissioner to consider the matter. 4. Pursuant to the same, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order directing the parties to seek for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4186 WP No. 1866 of 2025 redressal of their grievance before the competent Civil Court. Thereafter, respondents 3 to 5 has approached the Civil Court by filing a suit in OS.No.134/2022 and during the pendency of the suit, respondents 3 to 5 again filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner allowed the said appeal canceling the licence granted to the petitioner. 5. In my view, since respondents 3 to 5 have approached the Civil Court seeking for declaration of their title and also for possession of property, the grant of licence in favour of the petitioner would not in any way prejudice the respondents 3 to 5. If ultimately respondents 3 to 5 succeed in the suit, they would be entitled for possession including the building that the petitioner would now be put up. It is therefore clear that the Deputy Commissioner would not have passed the impugned order. The impugned order is therefore set aside. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4186 WP No. 1866 of 2025 6. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to put up construction according to the plan sanctioned, but this construction would, however, be subject to the ultimate result of O.S.No.134/2022 filed by the respondents 3 to 5 and the petitioner would be bound to handover possession of property including the building, without claiming any equity, if respondents 3 to 5 succeed in the suit. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4