- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29343 WP No. 17220 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 17220 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI VITTAL S SHETTY S/O. LATE. SHANKAR SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT. NO.2-45B-1, KAVERI COMPOUND SHALE BAGILU, UPPUNDA VILLAGE, BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT 576 232 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE COMMISSIONER REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MANIPAL, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI 576 104 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL, UDUPI DISTRICT 576 104 4. THE POLICE COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI 576 101 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29343 WP No. 17220 of 2026 5. THE CHIEF OFFICER PATTANA PANCHAYATH, BYNDOOR, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576214 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO REMOVE THE ILLEGAL STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED ON THE NO PARKING ZONE I.E., IN FRONT OF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER BY IMPLEMENTING THE NOTIFICATION DATED 18.10.2005, PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, AS PER ANNEXURE B, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner asserts ownership of property in Sy.No.108/15 and Sy.No.108/2B2 of Yedthare Village, Byndoor Taluk, and the petitioner seeks direction to the Chief Officer, Pattana Panchayat, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29343 WP No. 17220 of 2026 Byndoor [the fifth respondent] to remove the alleged illegal construction in the No Parking Zone in front of the petitioner's commercial building and to shift the bus stand from the No-Parking Zone in front of his property to either near the Post Office or KEB Substation in the vicinity. 2. 2. Sri K. Nagendra Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner’s cause for such relief is justified because: [a] in the meeting presided over by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on 21.02.2007 it has been resolved that autorickshaws and other public transport are not permitted to park at this junction and there would be an alternative arrangement for parking, and [b] a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.20612/2009 [GM-RES-PIL], which is decided on 13.04.2011, has recorded - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29343 WP No. 17220 of 2026 the statement made on behalf of the authorities that the autorickshaw stand at the Byndoor Main Junction Highway- 17 is prohibited and that a No-Parking Zone would be ordered at this junction in terms of the Notification dated 18.10.2005, [c] the petitioner has the advantage of a decree in O.S.No.23/2007 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge [Jr.Dn.] & JMFC, Kundapura against the Rickshaw Tempo Taxi Chalaka Malakara Sangha [Regd], Byndoor. 3. This Court upon perusal of the records has called upon Sri. Bopanna Belliappa, a learned Additional Government Advocate, to secure instructions from the jurisdictional Commissioner on the construction of the bus stand as alleged by the petitioner and the details of the permission accorded - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29343 WP No. 17220 of 2026 for such construction. On instructions, Sri. Bopanna Belliappa submits that the local MLA from out of his funds has ensured construction of a bus stand to meet the requirements of students commuting to educational institutions within the vicinity of the bus stand, but the office of the second respondent has accorded no permission as it is on the shoulder of a National Highway. 4. This Court must observe that the petitioner cannot rely upon the concluded proceedings in the year 2007 or 2011 to assert that there should be no construction in front of his property and if the petitioner's right, including easementary rights are affected in any manner, the petitioner will have to avail civil remedy. Insofar as the construction along a National Highway is concerned, the concerned is not even a party to the present proceedings and a cause against this Authority for construction would be extraneous. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29343 WP No. 17220 of 2026 Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere, and the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue both the civil remedy and the remedy against the National Highway Authority as permissible in law. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA List No.: 3 Sl No.: 15