- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6584 WP No. 30858 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 30858 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O VENKATACHALA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 111, JLB ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA, MYSORE CITY AND ALSO AT NO 1100, DEVA PARTHIVA ROAD, CHAMRAJAPURAM, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSORE …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560001 2. MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MANDI MOHALLA STREET NEAR FAROOQIA DENTAL COLLEGE BANNIMANTAP, MYSURU, KARNATAKA – 570021 3. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER J L B ROAD, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6584 WP No. 30858 of 2018 MYSURU – 570005 4. THE SPECIAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J L B ROAD, MYSURU – 570005 5. THE TOWN PLANNING MEMBER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J L B ROAD, MYSURU- 570005 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SMT. GEETHADEVI.M.P., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 22.03.2018, AND THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 24.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (AT ANNEXURE-J & K RESPECTIVELY), ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 22.03.2018 addressed to the Town Planning Officer by the Town Planning Member stating that the Heritage Committee had resolved to restrict the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6584 WP No. 30858 of 2018 height of the petitioner's proposed building to 12.0 meters. 2. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the consequential endorsement whereby the petitioner has been called upon to restrict the height of the structure to 12.0 meters and submit a revised plan. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the said endorsements are illegal inasmuch as there is no legal bar or a legal requirement of restricting the height of the building to 12.0 meters under the Zonal Regulations. 4. It is apparent from Annexures “J” and “K” that the petitioner was not heard in the matter before the impugned endorsements have been issued holding that the petitioner is required to restrict the height of the proposed building to 12.0 meters. 5. In that view of the matter, instead of quashing Annexures “J” and “K”, it would be appropriate to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6584 WP No. 30858 of 2018 direct the petitioner to consider Annexures “J” and “K” as show-cause notices and permit the petitioner to file his objections to the same. 6. The petitioner would be entitled to raise all such objections that are permissible in law, including the assertion that there is no legal requirement under the Zonal Regulations for restricting the height to 12.0 meters. 7. If such objections are filed within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be considered by the respondents within a further period of four months thereafter and appropriate shall orders be passed. 8. If necessary or if so required, respondent Nos.2 and 3, on receipt of the objections from the petitioner, shall also place the objections before respondent No.4/Special Heritage Committee and secure its views in the matter before taking a decision. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6584 WP No. 30858 of 2018 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55