- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25871 WP No. 12551 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12551 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI B K SREEDHAR S/O B.S. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT, BR PROJECT, BHADRAVATHI TALUKU, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577115. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANDEESWARA D R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF GRAMA SWARAJ AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JILLA PANCHAYATH SHIMOGGA, DISTRICT-SHIMOGGA.577201. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25871 WP No. 12551 of 2026 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BHADRAVATHI TALUKU, DISTRICT SHIMOGGA - 577 201. 4. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SINGAMANE VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, BHADRAVATHI TALUKU, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT NO. SAM.SI.GRA.PAM/2025-26 DATED 12/1/2026 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PDO BY REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 4/12/2025 FOR SEEKING LICENSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF 1 FLOOR AND NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE IN SITE NO.156/21 OF SHANKARA GHATTA VILLAGE, SINGANAMANE GRAMA PANCHAYATH AND THE NOTICE BEARING NO. SAM.SI.GRA.PAM/2025-26 DATED 29/1/2026 FOR STOPPING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AS PER THE KARNATAKA GRAM SWARAJ AND PANCHAYATH RAJ RULES 1993 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B; B) DIRECTING THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO ISSUE THE BUILDING LICENSE AND CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25871 WP No. 12551 of 2026 DOCUMENTS TO THE PETITIONERS AS PER THE VIDE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 12/3/2026 ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the fourth respondent's Endorsement dated 12.01.2026 [Annexure-A]. The fourth respondent has issued this Endorsement informing the petitioner that his application for sanction of building plan and license cannot be considered because the neighbour has filed objections stating that he must not be permitted building plan/license unless he removes encroachment of 26 x 50 feet in his property. The fourth respondent has also referred to the pending proceedings before this Court in RSA No.1454/2024. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25871 WP No. 12551 of 2026 2. Sri Anandeeswar D. R., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits the following. [a] This Court must intervene because the neighbour, who has filed a suit in O.S.No.555/2012 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi for declaration of title to the disputed area, has lost successively both in the suit and in the first appeal in RA No.68/2022 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi. [b] The Objector/neighbour has filed a Regular Second Appeal but there are no interim orders restraining the petitioner from putting up an additional floor which he is entitled to in terms of the bye-laws; [c] that the fourth respondent must only examine whether a plan could be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25871 WP No. 12551 of 2026 permitted/sanctioned for the proposed construction and not act as an arbitrator or take sides while examining the permissibility of permitting construction according to the relevant bye-laws. 3. Sri Bopanna Belliappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first respondent, and Sri A. Nagarajappa, a learned standing counsel for the second to fourth respondents, are heard. This Court must opine that the mere pendency of the Regular Second Appeal cannot be a reason to refuse plan/licence for construction if it is otherwise permissible in law especially when it cannot be contested that the person objecting the issuance of such plan/license has failed concurrently and does not have the advantage of an interim order in the appeal proceedings. The petitioner has produced the copies of the judgments in the suit and appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25871 WP No. 12551 of 2026 4. Therefore, there must be interference but this Court must observe that the fourth respondent must consider the permissibility of granting licence and approving the plan for construction subject to the relevant regulations independent of the pending dispute, and the petitioner, if permitted by the fourth respondent in terms of the relevant regulations, must undertake construction subject to orders in the pending Regular Second Appeal. Hence, the following: ORDER [A] The petition is allowed in-part quashing the impugned Endorsement dated 12.01.2026 [Annexure-A] directing the fourth respondent to consider submissions made for the grant of sanction/license for the proposed construction observing that the fourth respondent shall be within its jurisdiction to stop all construction if underway before there is a decision on the plan and license. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25871 WP No. 12551 of 2026 [B] It is further observed that the petitioner's right to construct in terms of the plan that is to be sanctioned by the fourth respondent will be subject to orders in RSA No.1454/2024. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr