Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 57203 (KAR)

NAGARIKA HITARAKSHANA SAMITI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/31083/2024 · 2025-08-12

M I Arun

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31180 WP No. 31083 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 31083 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. NAGARIKA HITARAKSHANA SAMITI SRIRAMPURA, MYSURU (AN UNREGISTERED ASSOCIATION) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. JAYANTH J, NO.1, PREETHI LAYOUT, SRIRAMPURA, MYSURU - 570 008. 2. SRI. JAYANTH J S/O J.S JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, PREETI LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 023. 3. SRI. RAMARAJE URS P S/O PUTTARAJE URS, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. 298, 7TH CROSS, KANDAYA NAGARA, SRIRAMPURA, MYSURU - 570 008. 4. SMT. N.D. MAMATHA C/O CHANDRASHEKAR K AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 29, KALPAVRUKSHA, MCD LAYOUT, NEAR KANDAYA NAGARA, SRIRAMPURA 2ND STAGE Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31180 WP No. 31083 of 2024 MYSURU - 570 023. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR P1 TO P4) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 001. 3. THE MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 006. 4. THE MYSURU CITY CORPORATION REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MYSURU - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDRU, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. GAURAV G.K, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE ALL KIND OF BASIC NECESSITY, FACILITIES AND TO CARRY OUT ALL KIND OF DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES REQUIRED FOR THE LAYOUTS I.E. KANDAYA NAGARA 1, 2, 3 AND 4, MUNINARAYANAPPA LAYOUT, PREETI LAYOUT, SAI LAYOUT, DGM LAYOUT, HAMSA LAYOUT, BHAVYA BHARATA LAYOUT, MDCC LAYOUT, MCD LAYOUT, SRI VILASA LAYOUT, SUDHEENDRA LAYOUT, AND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31180 WP No. 31083 of 2024 OTHER LAYOUTS THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE INNER PERIPHERY OF THE RING ROAD IN THE SRIRAMPURA, MYSURU AREA FALLING UNDER WARD-65 OF KRISHNARAJ ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY TO THE MANAGEMENT / PURVIEW OF THE NEAREST LOCAL BODY BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17/09/2024, 24/08/2024 AND 20/08/2024 (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A TO A2, G AND G1 RESPECTIVELY) MADE BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The petitioners are said to be residents of Preeti Layout and MCD Layout, Kandaya Nagara, Srirampura in the city of Mysuru. On the ground that proper facilities have not been provided to them, the writ petition is filed with the following prayers: "Wherefore, the Petitioners most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to; i. Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondent authorities to provide all kind of basic necessity, facilities and to carry out all kind of developmental activities required for the layouts i.e., Kandaya Nagara 1, 2, 3 and 4, Muninarayanappa layout, Preeti Layout, Sai Layout, DGM Layout, Hamsa - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31180 WP No. 31083 of 2024 Layout, Bhavya Bharata Layout, MDCC Layout, MCD Layout, Sri.Vilasa Layout, Sudheendra Layout, and other layouts that are located in the inner periphery of the ring road in the Srirampura, Mysuru area falling under ward-65 of Krishnarajassembly Constituency to the management/purview of the nearest local body by considering the representation dated 17-09-2024, 24- 08-2024 and 20-08-2024 (produced at Annexure A to A2, g and G1 respectively) made by the Petitioners herein. ii. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and direct the Respondent authorities, pending consideration of representation dated 17-09-2024, 24-08-2024 and 20- 08-2024 (produced at Annexure-A to A2, G and G1 respectively) to not proceed with handing over the Kandaya Nagara 1, 2, 3 and 4, Muninarayanappa Layout, Preeti Layout, Sai Layout, DGM Layout, Hamsa Layout, Bhavya Layout, MDCC Layout, MCD Layout, Sri.Vilasa Layout, Sudheendra Layout, and other layouts that are located in the inner periphery of the ring road in the Srirampura, Mysuru area falling under ward-65 of Krishnaraj Assembly Constituency to the management/purview of the nearest local body. iii. Issue any other Writ or Order and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31180 WP No. 31083 of 2024 2. The learned advocates for respondent Nos.3 and 4, upon instructions, submit that presently Town Panchayats have been created under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and the area where the petitioners are residing falls within Srirampura Town Panchayat and they have to request the said Town Panchayat to provide basic amenities. It is further submitted that the petitioners do not have the right to demand which local authority should govern them and it is for the State, taking into consideration the administrative convenience, to bifurcate the areas and determine which Town Municipality or locality comes under it. 3. No doubt any layout once approved by the authority concerned has to be provided with basic facilities in accordance with law. However, the petitioners do not have the liberty to demand a particular local authority has to govern them. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31180 WP No. 31083 of 2024 4. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby disposed of. ii. The petitioners are given liberty to make due representation to the jurisdiction Town Panchayath for providing basic amenities in accordance with law and if such a request is made, it is needless to state the same shall be considered by the authority concerned in accordance with law. iii. As the petitioners are not having any right to demand that their residence should be part of a particular city corporation or Town Panchayat and hence, the second prayer of the petitioners in the writ petition is rejected. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK