- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29015 WP No. 9698 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.9698 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHANTHAMMA C/O CHANAMMA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADAVARA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 162. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y.P. VIJAYA VASANTHA KUMARI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, CITY COUNCIL, MADANAYAKANAHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 162. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29015 WP No. 9698 of 2025 3. SRI. JAGADISH T.N. BILL COLLECTOR MADANAYAKANAHALLI CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 162. 4. SMT. THIMMAKKA W/O LATE VENKATESH D/O LATE ANNAYYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'SANIHA FARM' BENGALURU MADHUGIRI MAIN ROAD, HALENAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASIPURA POST, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R.1; SRI A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2; SRI RAVISHANKAR A., ADVOCATE FOR R.3 SRI S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R.4.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 11.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO. ªÀiÁ.£À.PÁ/PÀA.±Á/©.¹-4/¹.Dgï/25/2024-25 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29015 WP No. 9698 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner claims to be owner of certain properties situated in Sy.No.52/1B, Madavara Grama, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, which comes under respondent No.2 - City Municipal Council. Admittedly, the land is an agricultural land. However, without obtaining any permissions, the petitioner has constructed a residential building consisting of several houses. She has requested respondent No.2 to provide her necessary water connection. At this juncture, respondent No.4 has objected for the same on the ground that the property concerned is a joint family property and petitioner does not have exclusive right over the same and a partition suit bearing O.S.No.726/2024 is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala in this regard. This resulted in respondent No.2 asking for particulars including licence, completion certificate and occupancy certificate for providing necessary water connection. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29015 WP No. 9698 of 2025 petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the endorsement issued by the second respondent wherein certain permissions as mentioned above is requested from the petitioner by second respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that similarly situated persons have been granted the necessary water connection and only the petitioner is discriminated against. On the ground of parity, it is prayed that the impugned endorsement be set aside and a direction be issued to respondent No.2 to provide the necessary water connection. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that she is also having an undivided right, title and interest over the property where the houses are constructed and the houses have been constructed illegally by the petitioner and submits that necessary water connection should not be granted to the petitioner and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that as per the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and the Rules made thereunder, respondent No.2 can give permission for water connection only to those buildings which - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29015 WP No. 9698 of 2025 have been constructed by obtaining all the required permissions in law and not otherwise. It is submitted that by way of impugned endorsement, respondent No.2 has not refused permission to the petitioner, but has only requested them to provide the required certificates / permissions in accordance with law. 5. Orderly development of a Society requires that every citizen follow the Rule of law. The law requires a person to put up construction after obtaining necessary permissions, that requires to be followed. By breaching the same, one cannot demand that necessary water connection has to be provided to him, when it is prohibited in law. In the instant case, the impugned endorsement is issued in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (Sections 187 and 190 read with the relevant building by-laws). I do not see any error in the same. If the petitioner is of the opinion that she has to be granted necessary permission from respondent No.2 without demanding for the certificates / permissions demanded in the endorsement, she is always at liberty to give an explanation to respondent No.2 and show how her case has to be considered without insisting upon the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29015 WP No. 9698 of 2025 documents demanded. If she does so, it is needless to state that respondent No.2 will consider the case in accordance with law and take appropriate decision. Mere making statements that similarly situated persons have been granted water connection and she has been discriminated without showing that she is entitled to water connection in accordance with law and without producing the documents demanded, she is not entitled to any reliefs. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. Pending interlocutory applications, if any stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5