- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46018 WP No. 47886 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 47886 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: ABDUL RAHIMAN ARIYAPPADI S/O HAJI IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT ARIYAPPADI MANZIL NEAR DEVI CINEMA KUMBLA POST, KASARGOD DISTRICT KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER DR. MOOSA HEROOR S/O YUSUF AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT CPCRI QUARTERS POST KUDLU, KASARGOD DISTRICT KERALA STATE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHIN MADEV HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION MANGALORE - 575 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION, MANGALORE - 575 003. 3. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER/WORKS PALAKKAD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE SOUTHERN RAILWAY DIVISION, PALAKKAD-678014, KERALA STATE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46018 WP No. 47886 of 2018 SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 (ABSENT); NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 30.09.2015 IN NO.E8/BA94/2015-16, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, THE LETTER DATED 25.02.2016 IN NO.EB/CR 35/2015-16 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, THE LETTER DATED 12.02.2018 IN NO.JW.280/NOC/19/1800/16 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 11.09.2018 IN NO.E8/BA/99/2018-19 ISSUED by 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A, B, C, D 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 sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 30.09.2015 bearing No.E8/BA94/2015-16 issued by respondent No.2 as well as the letter bearing No.EB/CR 35/2015-16 dated 25.02.2016 issued by respondent No.1 and the letter bearing No.JW.280/NOC/19/1800/16 dated 12.02.2018 issued by respondent No.3 and an endorsement bearing No.E8/BA/99/2018-19 dated 11.09.2018 issued by respondent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46018 WP No. 47886 of 2018 No.2. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to issue a licence in favour of the petitioner to put up the residential building in the schedule property. Alternatively, the petitioner has sought for a direction to respondent No.3 to issue a 'No Objection Certificate' in favour of the petitioner to put up residential building in the suit property. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he is the owner of land measuring 0.4 cents in Sy.No.278/17(P) of Mangaluru Thota Village, Mangaluru Taluk situated within Attawar Ward of the Mangaluru City Corporation. He claims that the said property was converted for non-agricultural residential use in terms of an order dated 08.02.2005. It is contended that the vendor of the petitioner was granted approval by respondent No.1 on 23.04.2012 for a single residential layout plan and consequent thereto, the petitioner purchased the aforesaid property in terms of a sale deed dated 31.07.2015. (ii) After obtaining the said approval, the petitioner submitted a representation for sanction of a building plan and licence for putting up a residential building on the aforesaid - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46018 WP No. 47886 of 2018 property. However, the respondent No.2 in terms of an order dated 30.09.2015 informed the petitioner that the property lies adjacent to a railway line and therefore, advised him to obtain a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Indian Railways. (iii) The petitioner thereafter submitted an application before the respondent No.1 which was forwarded to the Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railways for issuance of a 'No Objection Certificate'. The Indian Railways, vide letter dated 21.09.2016 informed respondent No.1 that the petitioner should give an undertaking that he would not plant any trees towards the railway track and that he should pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards processing charges. The petitioner thereafter remitted a sum of Rs.5,000/- and submitted a letter to the Indian Railways on 07.10.2016. However, by a communication dated 12.02.2018, the railways rejected the request of the petitioner stating that the property in question lay close to the proposed third and fourth railway line. (iv) Based on the aforesaid communication, respondent No.2 by letter dated 11.09.2018, rejected the application submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore before - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46018 WP No. 47886 of 2018 this Court challenging the aforesaid communications as well as the endorsements issued by respondent authorities. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the conversion sketch, the petitioner's property is situated approximately 37 - 38 feet away and therefore lies beyond the 30 foot buffer zone fixed by the Indian Railways. He therefore prays that respondent Nos.1 and 2 be directed to conduct a spot inspection and determine whether it is feasible to sanction the plan by excluding the marginal land. 4. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that they have no objection to inspect the petitioner's property and take the necessary measurements. However, he contends that in the absence of a No objection Certificate from respondent No.3 it would be difficult to sanction any plan. 5. The learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that the Indian Railways would not have any objection, if construction is put up in the area falling beyond the buffer. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46018 WP No. 47886 of 2018 6. The conversion sketch enclosed along with the writ petition indicates that the petitioner's property has a depth of approximately 37 to 38 feet. Even assuming that the petitioner is prohibited from putting up any construction within 30 feet from the Railway land, such restriction does not deprive him of the right to use the remaining portion of his land. 7. In that view of the matter respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to re-inspect the petitioner's property and ascertain whether a building plan can be sanctioned by permitting construction in the remaining portion of the land, after excluding the area lying within 30 feet from the Railway boundary. If yes, they shall sanction the plan without any delay. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41