- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010595392026 NC: 2026:KHC:51394 WP No. 27668 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 27668 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT KAIJAMMA W/O LATE AHMED BYARI, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT PERIYADKA, UPPINANGADY VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 574 241. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMNENT OFFICER, UPPINANGADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010595392026 NC: 2026:KHC:51394 WP No. 27668 of 2026 UPPINANGADY POST, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 241 3. SMT. SHAHIDA BANU, W/O ABDUL HAMEED, AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT PERIYADKA, UPPINANGADY VILLAGE AND POST, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 241. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, UPPINANGADY POLICE STATION, UPPINANGADY, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K- 574241. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJAYOGA K, HCGP FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 TO FORTHWITH IMPLEMENT ITS NOTICE DATED 24.07.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, BY CANCELLING/REVOKING THE FORM NO.9 AND 11 AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PERMISSION GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY. NO.322/1A OF UPPINANGADY VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT, AND BY TAKING ALL CONSEQUENTIAL AND EFFECTIVE STEPS TO PREVENT THE FURTHER/ONGOING ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION BEING CARRIED OUT BY RESPONDENT NO.3 THEREON. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010595392026 NC: 2026:KHC:51394 WP No. 27668 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner alleges that the third respondent is putting up construction in the property owned by her and that the second respondent [the Panchayat Development Officer] has admitted revenue entries and sanctioned building plan in favour of the third respondent notwithstanding the same. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that  in these circumstances and because the third respondent is given the benefit of plan during the pendency of a suit, the petitioner has filed a complaint, and  the second respondent, after issuing notice dated 24.07.2026 under Section 64 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 [for short, ‘the Act’] has not taken any - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010595392026 NC: 2026:KHC:51394 WP No. 27668 of 2026 action, and therefore, this Court must intervene. Mr. Rajayoga K, a learned High Court Government Pleader who accepts notice for the first respondent, is heard for the disposal of the petition. In the circumstances underscored by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court must observe that the jurisdiction under Section 64 of the Act would only be if the construction/reconstruction is without permission or in any manner contrary to the terms upon which permission is granted and this jurisdiction cannot be invoked if the complaint is that the plan is admitted to a property in which the person has no interest. The petitioner, if that is the reason for a grievance, will have to approach the second respondent to avail the remedy under the appropriate provisions of the Act with the Competent Authority - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010595392026 NC: 2026:KHC:51394 WP No. 27668 of 2026 and there cannot be an interference in this petition to cancel the revenue entries or set at naught the sanctioned plan. Hence, the petition stands disposed of with liberty subject to all just exceptions. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6