- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47110 WP No. 12602 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12602 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI DARSHAN H.R. S/O RAJANNA H.M. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT BEHIND ANNAPURNA THEATRE, VENKATESHWARA NAGARA KADUR TALUK, KADUR, CHIKMAGALUR - 577548 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AKSHAY KUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER, AMBEDKAR ROAD, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001 2. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KADUR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, CPC COLONY, KADUR, CHIKMAGALUR - 577548 3. SRI. NANDISHA S/O MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47110 WP No. 12602 of 2025 PANIPURI BUSINESS, INFRONT OF SBI BANK, K M ROAD, KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK, CHIKAMAGALUR - 577548 4. SRI. RAMESH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS CONTRACTOR, RENUKA CONSTRUCTIONS SOMESHWARA COMPLEX, MARANJI CIRCLE, OPPOSITE AMBEDKAR STATUE, KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577548 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KENCHEGOWDA H.K., ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. J.N.NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI. G.S.BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 2 TO CONSIDER AND TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS NOs.3 AND 4 FOR VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS IN THE LICENSE BEARING NO.KDR-LBPAS- 10916/2024-25/BP DATED 06.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND UNLAWFUL CONSTRUCTION AS MENTIONED IN REPRESENTATION DATED 31.01.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47110 WP No. 12602 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider his representation dated 31.01.2025 and take action against respondent Nos.3 and 4 for violation of the conditions of the licence bearing No.KDR-LBPAS-10916/2024-25/BP dated 06.01.2025 and also to direct respondent No.1 to take action against the concerned officials for failing to stop the unlawful construction. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a property adjacent to the property belonging to respondent Nos.3 and 4. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 obtained sanction of a building plan and licence to construct a residential building on their property. The petitioner claims that respondent Nos.3 and 4 commenced construction without leaving the required setbacks. Therefore, being aggrieved by the illegal and unauthorised construction, he submitted a representation to respondent No.2 on 31.01.2025. It is stated that respondent Nos.3 and 4 in collusion with the officials of respondent No.2, continued the construction. The petitioner thereafter submitted further - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47110 WP No. 12602 of 2025 representations on 14.02.2025 and 10.03.2025 to take action against respondent Nos.3 and 4. Since no action is taken, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid relief. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the plan is sanctioned by respondent No.2, and when the petitioner being the adjoining property owner, had informed respondent No.2 that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are putting up construction in violation of the sanctioned plan, it is incumbent upon respondent No.2 to take action and ensure that the construction is in conformity with the sanctioned plan and the applicable building bye-laws. He submits that respondent No.2 despite being duty-bound to act, has deliberately failed to initiate any action and therefore seeks suitable directions to respondent No.2. 4. (i) The learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed for more than one reason, namely, that the petitioner had filed O.S No.859/2024 for perpetual injunction, where an application for interim injunction was refused by the Trial Court and Miscellaneous Appeal No.3/2025 filed therefrom was also - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47110 WP No. 12602 of 2025 rejected. He contends that the petitioner deliberately did not disclose the above particulars and has filed this writ petition innocuously seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to consider the representations and initiate action against the respondent Nos.3 and 4. (ii) He further submits that this Court in W.P. No.3604/2025 had directed the Chief Officer to appoint a Technical Officer of the City Municipal Council to measure the properties of the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and pursuant thereto, the Assistant Engineer has prepared a sketch and submitted it to the Chief Officer, who in turn has placed the report before this Court. The said report indicates that the petitioner is in possession of land in excess of the extent mentioned in the sale deed. He therefore submits that the issue whether the excess land belongs to respondent Nos.3 and 4 is to be adjudicated in the pending suit and consequently, no directions can be issued to respondent No.2 in this writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47110 WP No. 12602 of 2025 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed O.S. No.859/2024 for perpetual injunction against respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the said suit is pending consideration. The petitioner for reasons unknown has not disclosed the pendency of the suit in this writ petition. 7. Be that as it may, this Court in W.P. No.3604/2025 had directed the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, to appoint a technical person to measure the properties of the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4. Pursuant to the said direction, the Assistant Engineer measured the properties of both parties and submitted a report to the Chief Officer, who in turn has placed the same before this Court. 8. A perusal of the report indicates that the petitioner is in possession of property in excess of what is mentioned in the sale deed. Therefore, unless the question whether the excess area belongs to the petitioner or respondent Nos.3 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47110 WP No. 12602 of 2025 4 is adjudicated in civil suit, respondent No.2 cannot be directed to take action on the representations submitted by the petitioner. 9. In that view of the matter this petition is dismissed. It is open for the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law soon after the disposal of O.S. No.259/ 2024. 10. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0