- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8770-DB WA No. 100393 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO.100393 OF 2025 (LB-UC) BETWEEN: THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE, BANKAPUR TOWN MUNICIPALITY, BANKAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON, HAVERI 581202. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.H. BAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001. 2. CHANDRASHEKARAYYA, S/O VEERABHADRAYYA KALYANMATH, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC. NIL, RESIDENT OF ANKADAKHANA BANKAPUR TOWN, TQ. SHIGGAON, HAVERI 581202. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, A.G.A. FOR R1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF STAY/ EXTENSION OF INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.103563/2025 (LB-RES) DATED 09.06.2025 AND 26.06.2025 & ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.07.17 10:34:44 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8770-DB WA No. 100393 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) Learned Additional Government Advocate is requested to take notice for respondent No.1. 2. The Town Municipality, Bankapur, is before this Court aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on 09.06.2025. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the second respondent/ writ petitioner has filed the writ petition contending that he is the owner of property bearing No. 337 situated at Bankapur town and due to heavy rains the old building is damaged and he is seeking to reconstruct the building. It is contended that the Deputy Commissioner has sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner for construction. However the Municipality is interfering in the construction and is issuing directions to the petitioner not to put up any further construction. The prayer in the writ petition is to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8770-DB WA No. 100393 of 2025 set aside the notices issued by the Municipality and to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s construction. 4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order directing the respondents not to take or initiate any coercive steps to take possession or demolition of the property belonging to the petitioner as mentioned in the petition and in Annexures-E, F, G, H & K, till the next date of hearing. 5. Learned counsel submits that the appellant has filed an application for vacating the interim order. However when the same was pressed, the learned Single Judge has passed an order dated 26.06.2025 that the interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of hearing and the matter is listed on 10.07.2025. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that if the contention of the appellant is that the writ petitioner is not the owner of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8770-DB WA No. 100393 of 2025 property and that the property belongs to TMC, THE Municipality is required to file a separate application seeking directions to the writ petitioner not to put up any further construction. Merely by filing an application to vacate the interim order, the grievance of the Municipality will not be redressed. 7. Consequently we dispose of the writ appeal without issuing notice to respondent No.2 and reserving liberty to the appellant to file necessary application before the learned Single Judge. If such an application is filed by the Municipality before the learned Single Judge, we request the learned Single Judge to consider the same in accordance with law. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE BVV, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 34