- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53543 WP No. 37971 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 37971 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT GANGALAKSHMAMMA, WIFE OF BHASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.13, MUNICIPALITY NO.178/13, VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562123, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDEEP, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.ROOPESHA B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE NELAMANGALA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NELAMANGALA, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123, REPRESENTED BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NELAMANGALA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NELAMANGALA, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. 3. THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, NELAMANGALA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NELAMANGALA, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53543 WP No. 37971 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO CASE NO.£À¸À£É/EA±Á/¹Dgï/73/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-K FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.£À¸À£É/EA±Á/¹Dgï/73/2023-24 dated 16.09.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (henceforth referred to as ‘the KMC Act, 1964’). 2. (i) The petitioner claims that she is the owner of the site bearing No.13, Khatha No.178/13, situated at Vajarahalli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. She filed an application with the respondent No.1 on 10.11.2023 for sanction of a licence and a plan for constructing a house. Since the respondent No.1 did not issue the licence or the plan, she constructed a building in accordance with law, which is now serviced with the electricity and water connection. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53543 WP No. 37971 of 2025 (ii) The respondent No.1 issued a notice in the name of husband of the petitioner on 16.05.2024, which was addressed to No.178/13, Swagruha layout, Vajarahalli, where neither the petitioner nor her family members were residing. She therefore contends that the notices issued by the respondent No.1 are not served either on her or on her husband. Therefore, she could not reply to the same. (iii) The respondent No.1 then issued a show cause notice on 26.11.2024 under Section 187 of the KMC Act, 1964 addressed to 65/21 Sree.Maruthi Nilaya, M.G. Road, Maruthi Nagar, 3rd Main, Vajarahalli, Nelamangala, where the petitioner claimed that she was not residing and hence, the notice was not served on her, and she could not file objections to the said notice. Following this, the respondent No.1 issued an order dated 16.09.2025 under Section 187 of the KMC Act, 1964 and directed the petitioner to demolish the unauthorised construction, failing which, steps would be taken to demolish it. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the said order. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53543 WP No. 37971 of 2025 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice was not served upon the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. He therefore contends that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the respondent No.1 is liable to be directed to undertake a fresh exercise. 4. An order passed under Section 187 of the KMC Act, 1964 is appealable under Section 343 of the KMC Act, 1964. The respondent No.1 admittedly has attempted to serve the petitioner at the known addresses of the petitioner. If the said notices are not served on the petitioner, she has to establish the same in an appeal before the appropriate authority. Mere non-service of notice on the petitioner is not a ground to challenge the impugned order before this Court, as such a ground is also available to be urged before the appellate authority. 5. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition deserves to be disposed off, directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority in accordance with law. The petitioner is granted a month's time to approach the appellate authority. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53543 WP No. 37971 of 2025 The respondents are directed not to take any further action until the appeal is filed within the time mentioned above. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to file the appeal within the time mentioned above, the respondents are at liberty to take necessary action as provided in law. 6. Pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37