- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31915 WP No. 28787 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 28787 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. MANJULA M W/O LATE. DR. MANJUNATHA GOWDA. G., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A NO.1946/55, 4TH CROSS, VIDYANAGARA, DAVANAGERE-577 005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CITY CORPORATION DAVANAGERE, OPP. RAILWAY STATION, P.B. ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577002. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, CITY CORPORATION, OPP. RAILWAY STATION, P.B. ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577002. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31915 WP No. 28787 of 2024 3. VENKATESHWARAPPA GADDADA JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING DAVANAGERE. 4. SRI. JAGAN SHETTER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING DAVANAGERE. 5. SRI. JAGAN SHETTER IN CHARGE JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING, DAVANAGERE. 6. SRI. MAHAZAR SHARIF JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING DAVANAGERE. 7. SRI. ANUP KANOJ ASSISTANT EXECTUIVE ENGINEER CITY CORPORATION DAVANAGERE. 8. SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR T K ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CITY CORPORATION DAVANAGERE. 9. SRI. YASHVANTH ASSISTANT TOWN PLANNING OFFICE CITY CORPORATION DAVANAGERE. 10. SRI. VINAYAKA V JUNION ENGINEER CITY CORPORATION - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31915 WP No. 28787 of 2024 DAVANAGERE. 11. SRI. MARUTHI S HADIMANI JUNIOR ENGINEER CITY CORPORATION DAVANAGERE. 12. MS. SHRUTHI SIDDAPPA HALAVALLI JUNIOR ENGINEER CITY CORPORATION DAVANAGERE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B K MANJUNATH.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 28.02.2025 R3, R4, R5 & R9 STANDS DISMISSED; SRI. K. KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI. RAKESH BHATT., ADVOCAT FOR R12; SRI. YOGESH D NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R6, R10 AND R11; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.02.2025 R8 SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.09.2024 MADE IN NO. DAAMAPA/NA.YOO/CR/81/2023-24 PASSED BY THE R-2 HEREIN (ANNEXURE-A) BEING ARBITARY, CONTRARY TO LAW, BESIDES BEING VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION/REPRESENTATION DATED 23.10.2024 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31915 WP No. 28787 of 2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND ISSUE A DE-FACTO LICENSE SANCTION TO THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner asserts that she and her husband are the owners of the property bearing Municipal No.19/B [old Door No.1806/1 and Door No.1978/1 [Khata No.4506] of Vidyanagar in Davangere town. The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent's order dated 19.09.2024 [Annexure-A] which is titled as “Final Order”. The second respondent has directed the petitioner to remove the construction put up stating that such construction is illegal. 2. This Court, on 28.10.2024, with Sri K.N. Phanindra, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, contending that the petitioner has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31915 WP No. 28787 of 2024 submitted a plan which is according to the Bye-laws and there will be deemed approval under the statute, has granted interim order staying demolition and other coercive measures putting the petitioner on the condition that she shall not occupy the building without the leave of this Court. This Court has also called upon Sri. S Mahesh, the learned standing counsel, who is called upon to accept notice for the first and second respondents, to secure instructions on whether the plan submitted by the petitioner would be according to the permissible Bye-law parameters and whether it could be held that there is a deemed approval for the building. 3. The first and the second respondents have thereafter filed their Statement of Objections placing on record, amongst others, the Endorsement dated 06.07.2023 which reads that the application and the plan submitted for approval are rejected for “improper land documents” as per the Technical Section’s - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31915 WP No. 28787 of 2024 report. The first and the second respondents also assert that this Endorsement is preceded by Notices on 03.05.2023 and 14.09.2023 to the petitioner to produce title documents. In the interregnum, this Court, observing that the representatives of the first and the second respondents have deliberately stayed away from the proceedings, has directed the Registry to send a copy of this Court's order in this regard to the Secretary of Urban Development Department and this Officer is directed to file a Report on the difficulties that could be for the first and the second respondents to participate in the proceedings through their representatives. 4. This has resulted in the Officer placing on record the names of certain Officers who are now impleaded as the third to twelfth respondents. These respondents, who are now impleaded, are categorical in stating that they were not in office with the first respondent during the relevant time. This Court is of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31915 WP No. 28787 of 2024 the view that this submission must suffice insofar as the disposal of the petition against them. The first and the second respondents, despite all their hesitation, have come forward to complete their pleadings and place on record the documents. 5. The next aspect that should be considered is whether this Court must accept the Endorsement dated 06.07.2023 relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy under Section 443-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. This aspect is examined in the light of the circumstances stated above as also the facts that this Court has permitted the petitioner to complete interior works and that the petitioner has the advantage of a trade license issued by the first respondent for a Nursing Home to be housed in the property but the petitioner has not been able to commence its operations. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31915 WP No. 28787 of 2024 6. The Endorsement dated 06.07.2023, if it is to be accepted as a Final Order on the petitioner's submissions, this Court must opine that it is incumbent upon the first and the second respondents to show that it is served on the petitioner. There is no material in this regard. If this is the first circumstance which weighs upon this Court, the other is the reasons assigned in the Endorsement. This Court opines that if the petitioner is extended an opportunity, the petitioner can produce documents which would establish her interest in the property as would suffice for the purposes of granting sanction plan and building license. 7. This Court must also observe that if the petitioner is informed about any objection from the Technical Section on the submissions made, the petitioner could show cause or avail remedy to ensure that the objections are not an impediment for issuance of the license and sanction plan. In the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31915 WP No. 28787 of 2024 circumstances viz., where the property is complete in all respects and the petitioner is issued with trade license, there must be timely action with all due opportunity to the petitioner to produce documents and response to the objections, if any, by the Technical Section. Hence, the following: ORDER [A] The petition as against the third to twelfth respondents stands rejected. [B] The petition as against the first and second respondents is allowed quashing both the impugned order dated 19.09.2024 [as per Annexure – A] and the Endorsement dated 06.07.2023 restoring the petitioner's application for sanctioned plan and building license. [C] The second respondent, within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, shall communicate to the petitioner the documents that she will - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31915 WP No. 28787 of 2024 have to produce to show her interest in the property as would be necessary for the limited purposes of granting the sanctioned plan and building license. [D] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this Order with the second respondent within 4 [four] weeks from the date of receipt thereof. [E] The second respondent, if the petitioner complies with producing the documents as aforesaid and furnishing explanations to any observation by the Technical Section, shall decide on granting the approval of building license and sanction at the earliest but not later than three [3] months from the date of receipt of all the details. [E] The second respondent, in the peculiarities of this case, is called upon to consider the submissions earlier made and the submissions now made for grant of sanction - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31915 WP No. 28787 of 2024 and approval of license notwithstanding the fact that the construction is complete substantially. It is needless to observe that the petitioner cannot occupy until there is a decision in terms of these directions. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA Ct:sr