- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42241 WP No. 36695 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 36695 OF 2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. MAHADEVIAH S/O LATE GOPALASWAMY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.1229/1, M-2/1, 1ST CROSS, BENKI NAVABA STREET, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU 570 021. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER AND ZONAL OFFICE-06, NEW SHESHADRI AYYAIR ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, MYSURU-570 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, MYSURU-570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GAURAV G.K., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42241 WP No. 36695 of 2017 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT MYSURU IN M.A.NO.10/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE ABOVE SAID APPEAL 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 R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in M.A No.10/2016. He has also challenged an order bearing No.ªÉÄÊ£À¥Á/ªÀ.PÀ-06/PÀlÖqÀ gÀºÀzÁj 127/14-15 dated 15.03.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 under sub-section (3) of Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act, 1976'). 2. The petitioner is the owner of a property bearing Nos.9, 1229/1 M-2/1 measuring East to West (12 + 17)/2 feet and North to South 38 feet situate at 1st Cross, Benki Navaba Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru. The petitioner claims that one - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42241 WP No. 36695 of 2017 Mr. Narasimha Murthy and his wife were his neighbours and they in order to wreak vengeance against the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S. No.639/2015 on the file of the IV Additional I Civil Judge and JMFC., Mysuru. They submitted a representation before the respondents stating that the petitioner is constructing a building violating the sanctioned plan. Later, the respondents issued a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 321 of the Act, 1976. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid notice before the District Court in M.A No.10/2016, which was rejected in terms of the judgment dated 17.07.2017. During the pendency of the proceedings before the District Court, the respondent No.2 passed an order dated 15.03.2016 under sub- section (3) of Section 321 of the Act, 1976 and the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order passed by the respondent No.2 as well as the judgment dated 17.07.2017 passed by the District Court in M.A. No.10/2016 in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a provisional order as contemplated under Section 321(1) of the Act, 1976 was not issued to the petitioner and therefore, the District Court committed an error in dismissing the appeal filed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42241 WP No. 36695 of 2017 by him against the notice issued by the respondent No.2. He contends that the respondent No.2 during the pendency of the appeal before the District Court, has passed the confirmation order. This he contends is in violation of sub-section (1) of Section 321 of the Act, 1976 and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that an appeal before the District Court against a notice issued under sub-section (2) of Section 321 of the Act, 1976 is not maintainable and the District Court has rightly dismissed the appeal. He contends that the petitioner cannot challenge the confirmation order passed by the respondent No.2 under sub-section (3) of Section 321 of the Act, 1976 before this Court and it is for him to challenge it before the District Court as provided under Section 443-A of the Act, 1976. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42241 WP No. 36695 of 2017 6. The petitioner was served with a notice under sub- section (2) of Section 321 of the Act, 1976. The petitioner instead of showing cause against the notice and establish that the construction put up by him is in accordance with the sanctioned plan, filed an appeal before the District Court under Section 443-A of the Act, 1976. For the sake of convenience, Section 443-A of the Act, 1976 is extracted below: "443-A. Appeal to Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or District Court. - (1) Any person aggrieved by any notice issued, action taken or proposed to be taken by the Commissioner under Sections 308, 309, 321 (3) may appeal,- (i) to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in case of the [Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike;] (ii) to the District Court having jurisdiction in case of other corporations. (2) The decision of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or as the case may be the District Court shall be final. (3) All appeals made against any notice issued or other action taken or proposed to be taken by the Commissioner under sections 308, 309 and 321(3) and pending before the standing committee on the date of commencement of this section shall stand transferred to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, or as the case may be, District Court and such appeals shall be disposed off by them as if they were filed before them." 7. Therefore, a reading of Section 443-A of the Act, 1976 leaves no doubt that what could be challenged in an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42241 WP No. 36695 of 2017 appeal before the District Court is an order passed under sub- section (3) of Section 321 of the Act, 1976 and not a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 321 of the Act, 1976. A notice issued under sub-section (2) of Section 321 of the Act, 1976 is merely provisional which is subject to correction depending upon the explanation provided by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no error in the District Court dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. As regards the confirmation order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 which is challenged in this petition, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge the same before the District Court and certainly not before this Court in a writ petition. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is open for the petitioner to challenge the order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 under sub-section (3) of Section 321 of the Act, 1976 in accordance with law. Since the petitioner has been pursuing the remedy against the said confirmation order in this writ petition, the time consumed in pursuing this petition shall be deducted while calculating the limitation applicable to an appeal before the District Court. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42241 WP No. 36695 of 2017 petitioner is permitted to file an appeal within 30 days from today and the District Court shall consider and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of the appeal being filed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66