- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39737 WP No. 11427 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11427 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI CHOODAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs: a) SMT.C.BHARATHI W/O SRIDHARGOWDA D/O LATE CHOODAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT 7-18 EAGLETON GOLF VILLAGE 30TH KM BENGALURU-MYSURU HIGHWAY SHYANAMANGALA CROSS BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT - 562 109. b) SMT.C.NANDINI HARISH W/O H.M.HARISH D/O LATE CHOODAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS NO.B-58/59, AVIGHNA, ADARSHNAGARA, SOMINAKOPPA ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203. c) SMT.C.AJAYKUMAR S/O LATE CHOODAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39737 WP No. 11427 of 2025 RESIDING AT NO.533/1, B.M.ROAD, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SRINIVASA D C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHANNAPATNA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562160. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.BOPANNA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN NO.NA SA CHA/KHAA VI/ SIAAR/ 93/ 2024-25 DATED 24.02.2025 THE 2ND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN NO.NASACHA/KAM/SHAA/MAA HA/ SIAAR / 93 / 2024-25 DATED 04.03.2025 AND THE PROVISIONAL ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN NO. NASACHA /KAMSHAA /SI /AAR /93 /2024-25 DATED - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39737 WP No. 11427 of 2025 11.04.2025 VIDE ANNEXURES-E, F AND G RESPECTIVELY AS ILLEGAL ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 24.02.2025 bearing No. NaSaCha/Khaa. Vi/ SiAar /93 / 2024-25 issued by the second respondent as well as a notice bearing No. NaSaCha/ Kam. Shaa/ MaaHq/ SiAar/ 93 / 2024-25 dated 04.03.2025 issued by the second respondent and the provisional order passed by Respondent No.2 bearing No. NaSaCha/ KamShaa/ Si/ Aar / 93 / 2024-25 dated 11.04.2025. 2. The petitioner contends that he had purchased 1 acre 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.237 of Mangalavarpet Village, Kasaba Hobli, Channapatna Taluk and got it converted for non-agricultural purposes on 28.02.1984. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39737 WP No. 11427 of 2025 Thereafter, he formed a residential layout sites and sold many of the sites to various persons. He retained a property bearing No.646, Khatha No.5942, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 23 feet, situated at Ward No.1, B.M.Road, Chikkamaluru, Channapatna Taluk and had constructed a building thereon in the year 1997- 98. He claims that one Smt.Sarojamma, owner of property bearing khatha No.3402/632, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 60 feet, situated at Ward No.1, Chikkamaluru, Channapatna Town filed a representation dated 30.05.2022 to the second respondent for measuring her property. The second respondent issued a notice dated 15.03.2023 for measurement of the said property. The second respondent, thereafter issued notice to the petitioner for production of documents of the property, failing which, steps would be taken for removal of the encroachment. Thereafter, a final notice was issued on 29.06.2023 stating that there was some difference in the measurement of the property and therefore, necessary - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39737 WP No. 11427 of 2025 action needs to be taken for removal of the encroachment of the property. Thereafter, the second respondent issued an endorsement dated 17.07.2023 that action would be taken for removal of the encroachment. The said Smt.Sarojamma then filed a writ petition in W.P.No.17138 of 2024 (LB-RES) before this Court for a direction to the respondents to take further action in pursuance to the endorsement dated 17.07.2023. This Court, in terms of the order dated 13.12.2024 held that the second respondent has not followed the due procedure as provided under Section 187(9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'KMC Act') and directed the second respondent to inspect the property of the petitioner and to verify the documents in order to initiate proceedings, if warranted under Section 187(9) of the KMC Act within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. However, this Court kept open the contentions of the petitioner. Following the above, the second respondent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39737 WP No. 11427 of 2025 issued a notice dated 24.02.2025 calling upon the petitioner to produce the documents. The petitioner who could not comprehend the purport of the notice dated 24.04.2025 submitted a reply dated 03.03.2025 to the second respondent to withdraw the notice since it was vague and did not contain particulars. The petitioner also filed an appeal before the City Municipal Council, Channapatna under Section 343(1) of the KMC Act challenging the notice dated 24.02.2025. Thereafter, the second respondent without rectifying the defect in reply notice dated 24.02.2025, issued another notice dated 04.03.2025 for verification of spot and to receive the documents on 06.03.2025. The petitioner, though had filed an appeal before the second respondent, no steps were taken by second respondent. Therefore, the son of the petitioner submitted a representation to the second respondent on 11.03.2025 and 27.03.2025 seeking time to produce the documents. The second respondent, thereafter passed a provisional order dated 11.04.2025 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39737 WP No. 11427 of 2025 directing the petitioner to remove the construction put up on the property bearing No.632, failing which, action would be initiated in accordance with Section 187 of the KMC Act. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the notices dated 24.02.2025, 06.03.2025 and the provisional order dated 11.04.2025. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent has no authority in law under Section 197 of the KMC Act to remove the petitioner from the alleged encroached portion. He contends that the whole proceedings initiated by the second respondent is without jurisdiction and hence, the impugned notices as well as the provisional order is liable to be quashed. 4. The second respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner did not furnish any documents pursuant to the notices dated 24.02.2025 and 04.03.2025, but has challenged it before the second respondent. He contends that even before the second respondent could decide the appeal, the petitioner has approached this - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39737 WP No. 11427 of 2025 Court challenging the very same notices as well as the provsional order. He contends that the provisional order is also not justiciable as only a final order under Section 187(9) of the KMC Act could be challenged before the second respondent under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Appeals and Revision) Rules, 1967. He therefore contends that the petitioner is "barking up the wrong tree" by filing an appeal before the second respondent by challenging the notices dated 04.03.2025 and 06.03.2025. He therefore submits that this writ petition is mischievous and is liable to be dismissed with costs. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent. 6. The petitioner was called upon by the notices dated 24.02.2025 and 04.03.2025 to produce the documents and to assist in verification of the spot. This was in compliance with the direction issued by this Court - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39737 WP No. 11427 of 2025 in W.P.No.17138 of 2024. Ideally, the petitioner must have furnished the documents in support of his claim that he has not encroached any portion of property belonging to the said Smt.Sarojamma. The fact that the son of the petitioner has filed representations dated 27.03.2025 and 11.03.2025 seeking for more time to produce the documents establishes beyond doubt that the petitioner is unnecessarily protracting the proceedings. The petitioner has also challenged the notices before the second respondent though such an appeal is not maintainable before the second respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out the provision of law under which, such an appeal could be filed. The second respondent, which had no option, passed a provisional order directing the petitioner to remove the construction put up by encroaching the property of the said Smt.Sarojamma. This provisional order, too is not justiciable as the petitioner had to wait for a final order, which is enforceable in law to be passed and thereafter, he - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39737 WP No. 11427 of 2025 was entitled to file an appeal as prescribed under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Appeals and Revision) Rules, 1967. Therefore, neither the appeal before the second respondent nor this writ petition challenging the notices dated 24.02.2025 and 04.03.2025 and the provisional order dated 11.04.2025 are maintainable. In that view of the matter, the appeal before the second respondent filed by the petitioner and this writ petition stands dismissed. It is open for the petitioner to either comply with the provisional order or wait for the final order to be passed by the second respondent and thereafter, challenge the final order under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Appeals and Revision) Rules, 1967. The second respondent is directed to consider whether order under Section 187(9) of the KMC Act deserves to be passed under the facts and circumstances of the case and if yes, then the same shall be done within a period of four weeks from today. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39737 WP No. 11427 of 2025 In view of the disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.3 of 2025 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35