- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1749 WP No. 115 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 115 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. B P GANGADHAR S/O. PEEKYA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURIST. R/O. 'RAM PRAKASH NILAYA', KUVEMPU NAGARA, HULIYAR ROAD, HIRIYUR, HIRIYUR TOWN CHITRADURGA - 577 598. 2. SRI. DR. MURTHY H. S/O. HEMLA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC DOCTOR, R/O. HULIYAR ROAD, HIRIYUR TOWN, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA - 577 598. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1749 WP No. 115 of 2026 M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER, 9TH FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKER VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001, 3. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HIRIYUR TOWN, HIRIYUR CHITADURGA DISTRICT - 577 598 BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT/COMMUNICATION DATED 31.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN NO. 196889/DMA/DEV/OTH/ 159/2025-DMA/ AND 2 BEARING NO. 159/2025-DMA/ SERVED ON THE FIRST PETITIONER, 196889/DMA/DEV/OTH/ SERVED ON THE SECOND PETITIONER WHICH ARE PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B AND C RESPECTIVELY TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1749 WP No. 115 of 2026 a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the endorsement/communication dated 31.12.2025 issued by the second respondent in No. 196889/DMA/DEV/OTH/159/2025-DMA served on the first petitioner, and bearing No.1968859/DMA/DEV/OTH/159/2025-DMA served on the second No. petitioner which are produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-B and C respectively to the writ petition; b) Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent-authorities from demolishing the portion of the buildings of the petitioners exists as shown in the schedule to the writ petition without following the procedures established by law; c) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court deems it appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity; d) Award cost of the writ petition.” 2. The petitioner had approached the Director, the Directorate of Municipal Administration requesting the said Director to exercise the revisional powers under Section- 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, in view of the order passed on 12.02.2025 in W.P.No.103089 of 2021 in the case of SMT.ZEENATH AMAN & ANOTHER vs. SMT.VINUTHA GANGAVATHI AND OTHERS. The Director, Municipal Administration by way of the communication - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1749 WP No. 115 of 2026 dated 31.12.2025 without hearing the petitioner, directed the petitioner to approach the Regional Commissioner in pursuance of a Government Order bearing No.UDD/104/TMS/2014, dated 19.01.2015. 3. The said Government Order has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 15.12.2025, in W.P.No.31608 of 2025 in the case of SMT.PRIYA AND ANOTHER vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHERS, and has held that the order passed in ZEENATH AMAN’s case supra was in pursuance to the earlier circular which has now been substituted by the Government Order and as such the Revisional Authority under Section-322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act would be the Regional Commissioner. 4. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the Order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the Director, Municipal Administration which is under challenge in the present matter. However, since the petitioner would have - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1749 WP No. 115 of 2026 to be given an opportunity to approach the Revisional Authority, it would be required for the petitioner’s interest to be protected, until necessary orders are passed by the Revisional Authority. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is partly allowed; ii) The petitioner is permitted to approach the Revisional Authority in terms of the Government Order bearing No.UDD/104/TMS/2014, dated 19.01.2015, which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits would be done within a period of 2 weeks from now; iii) If such revision is filed, the Revisional Authority viz., the Regional Commissioner is directed to considered the said petition and pass necessary orders, within a period of four weeks the date of filing of the revision petition by the petitioner; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1749 WP No. 115 of 2026 iv) Until the disposal of the said petition, the respondents are restrained from dispossessing and demolishing the property of the petitioner; v) Needless to say if the revision petition is not filed within two weeks from today i.e., on or before 28.01.2026, the petitioner would not be entitled to the above protection. vi) I.A. No.1/2026 stands disposed of. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7