Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order, dated 1-4-2017, passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, in M.A. No. 22 of 2016, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 443-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ("the Act", for short).

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing Municipal Katha No. 1058/813/1118 (Old Municipal Katha No. 3068), P.I.D. No. 88359, situated at Ward No. 22, Someswarapuram Extension, Tumkur. According to the petitioner, she acquired the property from her husband under a registered gift deed dated 5-2-2014, followed by a rectification deed dated 10-2-2014. Pursuant to the gift deed dated 5-2-2014, the Katha of the scheduled property had also been transferred in the petitioner's name. Subsequently, in order to construct a house, she had applied for a sanctioned plan. According to the sanctioned plan, she was permitted to construct the Ground floor, the First floor, and the Second floor. While the construction was in progress, the petitioner's neighbour, namely Smt. Nagamma, filed a complaint before the Commissioner, Tumkur City Corporation, respondent 2, wherein she alleged that the construction carried out by the petitioner is in violation of the sanctioned plan. Further, the setback required to be left has not been left by the petitioner.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, by order dated 30-5-2014, the respondent 2 cancelled the licence issued in favour of the petitioner for putting up the construction over the schedule property. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 30-5-2014, the petitioner filed a writ petition, namely W.P. No. 2892 of 2014 before this Court. However, this Court directed the petitioner to file a revision petition before the Government and disposed of the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Bengaluru. By order dated 30-5-2014, the respondent 1 remanded the matter to the respondent 2, for reconsideration of the matter afresh.

4. Consequently, the petitioner appeared before the respondent 2 and submitted evidence in her favour. However, by order dated 19-2-2015, the respondent 2, again confirmed the order dated 30-5-2014.

5. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 19-2-2015, she filed a second writ petition before this Court, namely W.P. No. 9801 of 2015. By order dated 7-12-2015, this Court quashed the order dated 19-2-2015. And, therefore, the petitioner continued with the construction.

6. Since Smt. Nagamma was aggrieved by the continuation of construction, she filed a writ petition before this Court, namely W.P. No. 5494 of 2016, wherein she prayed that the respondent should be directed to take action against the petitioner as the construction being raised by the petitioner was an illegal one. By order dated 5-2-2016, this Court directed the respondent 2 to visit the place of construction, and if the construction is in violation of the sanctioned plan, to stop further construction and to submit a report before this Court. Consequently, the respondent 2 visited the scheduled property, and submitted his report before this Court. According to the report, there was a slight deviation from the sanctioned plan. According to the said report, there was a deviation to the extent of 4.4% that too, regarding leaving of the setback.

7. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was impleaded as a party-respondent. This Court was pleased to observe that "as noticed above, this Court in W.P. No. 9081 of 2015 has directed the first respondent to initiate action under Section 321 of the Act against the second respondent if there is any illegal construction. Whether construction of the building is according to the sanctioned plan or not has to be decided by the first respondent. I