- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7531 WP No. 50463 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 50463 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. DR. GRACIAN LAWRENCE PEREIRA, S/O D.M.C. PEREIRA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, DEL-DAT, CHILIMBI, URVA, MANGALORE - 575 006. 2. MRS. THELMA R.M. PEREIRA W/O DR. GRACIAN LAWRENCE PEREIRA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, DEL-DAT, CHILIMBI, URVA, MANGALORE - 575 006. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU - 575 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION, LAL BAGH, MANGALORE - 575 003. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, MANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, URVA STORES, AHSOK NAGAR, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7531 WP No. 50463 of 2018 MANGALORE - 575 006. 4. SAVITHRI V RAO AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, 5. M. SUDHAKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 6. SMT. SHARNILA RAHURAM AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 7. BHAGYALAXMI SUMANTH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO. 4 TO 7 ALL ARE RESIDING AT SRINIDHI AKSHAYA, CHILIMBI, URVA, MANGALORE - 575 006. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. HAREESH T. BHANDARY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. M. SUDHAKAR PAI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5; VIDE ORDER DATED 24.03.2022, NOTICE TO R6 AND R7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R-2 TO IMPLEMENT ITS ORDER DATED 24.05.2007 (ANNEXURE-F) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7531 WP No. 50463 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to be issued to the second respondent to implement the order dated 24.05.2007, a copy of which is produced as Annexure – P. 2. Annexure – P is an order passed by the Commissioner of the Mangalore Municipal Corporation holding that the construction put up by the respondents 4 to 7 was illegal to the extents mentioned therein and they were required to be dismantled. 3. Learned counsel for respondents 4 & 5 submits that as against the said order passed by the Commissioner under section 321(3) of the KMC Act, the respondents 4 & 5 preferred an appeal in MA.No.26/2007 to the District Judge and the District Judge by an order dated 04.03.2010 set aside the order dated 24.05.2007 i.e. Annexure – P and remanded the matter for reconsideration. He therefore - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7531 WP No. 50463 of 2018 submits that, basically the prayer in the petition itself is misconceived. 4. He goes on to state that pursuant to the said order of remand, the Commissioner once again passed an order of confirmation. However, while passing the order of confirmation, he also stated that the respondents had moved an application for regularization of his authorized construction and the authorities would take a view on the matter only after the Screening Committee decides the application for regularization. 5. He submits that as against the order of confirmation that had been passed on remanded by the Commissioner, the respondents 4 & 5 had preferred a Miscellaneous appeal in MA.No.33/2011 and in this appeal the petitioner had also preferred a Cross Objection and the District Judge ultimately dismissed both the appeal and cross objection filed by the respondents 4 & 5. 6. In the light of the facts narrated above, it is clear that the prayer sought for by the petitioner which was to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7531 WP No. 50463 of 2018 implement an order of confirmation, which has already been set aside, would not be maintainable. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. It is needless to state if the petitioner is aggrieved by any of the orders passed on remand, he would be at liberty to challenge it if so permissible in law. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40 CT: BHK