- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25241 WP No. 12450 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 12450 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: MR. NABEL MOHAMMED KHAN, S/O TAJ MOHAMMED KHAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, MAJOR, NO.141, 4TH MAIN, BANNIMANTAP C-LAYOUT MYSURU - 570 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKAMAPURMATH CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MYSORE CITY CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER MYSURU - 570 001. 2. ZONAL COMMISSIONER ZONE NO.7, LASKARA MOHALLA MYSORE CITY CORPORATION MYSURU - 570 001. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MYSORE CITY CORPORATION LASKARA MOHALLA MYSORE CITY CORPORATION MYSURU - 570 001. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25241 WP No. 12450 of 2025 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZONE NO.7, LASKARA MOHALLA MYSORE CITY CORPORATION MYSURU - 570 001. 5. MR. MIRZA ZIAUDDIN BEG OWNER OF SITE NO.3, 3A, 4, 4A S/O NOT KNOWN, AGE MAJOR, SITUATED AT BANNIMANTAP-C LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 001. 6. M/S. METAVERSE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, NO.3, 3A, 4, 4A, BANNIMANTAP C- LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SIDDHARTHA H.M, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. CHAND PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN NOT PREVENTING THE UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25241 WP No. 12450 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed alleging inaction on the part of respondent No.1 in not acting on the complaint lodged by the petitioner regarding construction undertaken by respondents No.5 and 6. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 and learned counsel for the respondents No5 and 6. Perused the records. 3. The primary grievance urged by the petitioner is that respondents No.5 and 6 have undertaken construction in clear violation of the sanctioned building plan and the applicable setback norms. It is contended that despite bringing these violations to the notice of the competent authority by lodging a formal complaint, respondent No.1 – the Corporation, has failed to take cognizance of the same or initiate appropriate proceedings - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25241 WP No. 12450 of 2025 under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, 'KMC Act'). 4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.5 and 6, upon instructions, submits that the construction in question has been carried out strictly in accordance with the sanctioned building plan and license, and that there is no deviation from the prescribed setback requirements. 5. In view of the rival contentions and the factual disputes raised, this Court is not inclined to record any conclusive finding on the allegations made by the petitioner at this stage. However, it is evident that respondent No.1 – Corporation, despite the complaint being lodged, has not taken any steps to initiate an enquiry or conduct a site inspection. This inaction, in the considered opinion of this Court, warrants interference. The competent authority under the KMC Act is duty-bound to look into such complaints and take appropriate action in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25241 WP No. 12450 of 2025 accordance with law. In light of the above, this Court deems it just and appropriate to issue necessary directions to respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner’s complaint and take appropriate action after due verification and affording opportunity to all concerned parties. ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. Respondent No.1 – Corporation is directed to act upon the complaint dated 19.11.2024 lodged by the petitioner, which is produced at Annexure-D to the writ petition. iii. Respondent No.1 shall conduct a spot inspection of the subject property and verify whether the construction undertaken by respondents No.5 and 6 is in accordance with the sanctioned building plan and whether there is any violation of setback norms or other applicable regulations. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25241 WP No. 12450 of 2025 iv. While conducting such inspection and verification, respondent No.1 shall issue prior notice to respondents No.5 and 6 and afford them an opportunity of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice. v. The entire exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT: BHK