Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 167
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.
Shri Krishnarao Kodancha, S/o. Late Hariramkrishna Rao - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Directorate Of Municipal Administration and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21080 of 2023 (LB-RES) C/W Writ Petition No. 7466 of 2024 (LB-RES)
Decided On : 03-07-2025
For the Petitioner: Sri Suyog Herale E., Adv.
For the Respondents: Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA, Sri T.I. Abdulla, Adv. Sri K.B. Prasad Hegde, Adv., Smt. S. Susheela, Senior Counsel for Sri S. Victor Manoharan, Adv.
Building licenses can only be revoked on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, not based on community objections or variations from zoning regulations.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Municipality Act, 1964 - Sections 187 and 188 - Building Licence - Petitioners challenged the refusal of the Municipality to act on their complaint regarding a building licence for a Community Hall; Municipality later cancelled the licence - Trust contends it had obtained necessary permissions as per Zoning Regulations for Community Hall in a residential area. (Paras 1-41)
(B) Zoning Regulations - Permitted uses in residential zones include 'places of worship' and construction commenced with permission - Civil Court previously found construction not in violation, thus Municipality's action to cancel the licence lacks jurisdiction. (Paras 19-40)
Facts of the case:
The complainant petitioned against the building licence granted to a Trust for constructing a Community Hall, arguing it was impermissible under the sanctioned plan, potentially causing communal disharmony. The Trust contended that the construction complied with zoning laws.
Findings of Court:
The Trust’s construction as a Prayer Hall qualifies under permissible uses in residential areas and no misrepresentation occurred, thus the cancellation was unlawful.
Issues: Whether the Municipality acted lawfully in cancelling the licence and the applicability of the zoning regulations regarding the usage of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that unless misrepresentation is established, a building licence cannot be canceled, and objections alone do not constitute grounds for cancellation of a validly granted license.
Result: Writ Petition No. 21080/2023 dismissed; Writ Petition No. 7466/2024 allowed, cancelling the Municipality’s order of revocation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. allegations regarding the community hall's construction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. trust's defense against allegations. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. details of the construction and licenses. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. court's acknowledgment of the civil court's findings. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. analysis of urban development authority's communication. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. legal standards regarding license revocation. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. discussion on authority's jurisdiction and statutory powers. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 9. legality of actions by urban development authority. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 10. final decisions on writ petitions. (Para 41 , 42) |
ORDER :
(S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.)
In Writ Petition No.21080/2023, the petitioner - Sri Krishnarao Kodancha has assailed the communication dated 27.07.2023 issued by respondent No.2 - City Municipality, Udupi, which is produced at Annexure-'A'. In terms of the said communication, the City Municipality has opined that no action could be taken on the complaint made as regards the licence granted to construct the Community Hall in light of the order passed by the Court of III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi on 01.07.2023 in O.S.No.328/2023. Krishnarao Kodancha (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') has also sought for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent City Municipality, Udupi, to consider the representation dated 23.03.2023 made by the petitioner and to take steps to cancel the licence granted to Chosen Generations Ministries (Registered), a Public Charitable and Religious Trust for construction of building.
2. W.P. No.7466/2024 has been filed by Chosen Generations Ministries which is a registered Public Charitable and Religious Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust'), calling in question the legality of the order at Annexure-'R' dated 15.02.2024 passed by the City Municipality, Udupi, cancelling the Building Licence issued to the said Trust. In the said impugned order dated 15.02.2024, the City Municipality, Udupi, has observed that the file of the petitioner seeking sanction plan was sent to Udupi Urban Development Authority who has opined that in terms of the "Master Plan - (Revision 1) of Udupi-Malpe Planning Area - 2021 Zoning Regulation & Building Bye-Law" (for short 'the Zonal Regulations') of the Authority, there is no provision for granting permission to construct Community Hall. It was further observed that there was variance with application of the Trust and purpose mentioned therein vis-à-vis the purpose mentioned in the Plan that is sanctioned. Accordingly, the Authority had directed the City Municipality to take appropriate action to cancel the Plan in light of violation of the conditions of the Plan. After issuing notices under Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipality Act, 1964, (for short 'the Act'), an order is passed to cancel the building licence granted.
3. In light of both the Writ Petitions seeking relief relating to an identical factual matrix, both the Writ Petitions are taken up together and disposed off by a common order.
4. It is the case of the complainant that construction of a Community Hall by the respondent No.4 on the basis of licence issued is in deviation of the sanctioned plan which was impermissible.
5. The complainant had submitted that the Trust is an entity with its office in New York in the United States of America and in a property converted for 'Residential Use', licence being issued for Community Hall/Prayer Hall without eliciting the objections of the residents is illegal and accordingly, had requested for action to be taken by the Authorities. In terms of Annexure-'B' (W.P.No.21080/2023) representation made, it was specifically averred that in the place where the proposed Community Hall is being constructed, there are no people belonging to the Community with respect to whom the Community
