SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 2203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R.NATARAJ, J.
Zakir Ahmed Son Of Mohammed Suleman - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8819 of 2020 (LB-RES)
Decided On : 03-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Rajashekar S., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. B. Bopanna, Additional Government Advocate

Municipal authorities must issue No Objection Certificates and door numbers in accordance with sanctioned building plans; unauthorized constructions may face enforcement actions.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act - Relevant provisions regarding construction and occupancy - The Court held consideration must be given to municipal authority's powers to issue No Objection Certificates and allot door numbers based on compliance with sanctioned plans. (Para 7)

(B) Urban Development Authority Guidelines - Importance of adhering to approved building plans and the legality of constructions in relation to No Objection Certificates. (Para 2)

(C) Principles of administrative law - Authorities must act according to their given powers while ensuring compliance with legal standards. (Para 4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, alleging ownership of two merged properties, constructed a building per sanctioned plans and sought a No Objection Certificate from the relevant local authorities which was denied. Numerous appeals and court directives ensued regarding the legality of the construction and issuance of necessary permits.

Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the previous directions to issue a No Objection Certificate were valid pending investigation into the legality of the construction. The refusal to issue a door number without further justification was deemed unacceptable.

Issues: The main issues addressed include the authority's power to regulate construction under sanctioned plans and the procedural validity of obtaining permits.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that the discrepancy between the petitioner's construction and statutory requirements necessitated a thorough investigation, but interim measures, such as maintaining electricity supply, were justified until an official determination of compliance was confirmed.

Result: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to allot a door number within four weeks and maintain ongoing electricity supply pending investigation.

Table of Content
1. ownership and construction details (Para 1 , 2)
2. concerns regarding no objection certificate and door number (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's analysis of construction legality and authority (Para 5 , 6)
4. conditions for continuation of electricity supply and door number allotment (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. final decision on the writ petition (Para 10 , 11 , 12)

ORDER :

R.NATARAJ, J.

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.dated 08.05.2020 passed by respondent No.2, whereby it held that respondent No.4 is entitled to proceed in accordance with law against the construction put up by the petitioner. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No. 4 to issue a No Objection Certificate to secure electricity connection to the building in question and to allot a door number to the building constructed by him.

2. (i) The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy.No.129/3D2B (P) measuring 13 cents situate in Bajpe Village, and the property bearing Survey No.145/15A measuring 10 cents situate in Permude Village of Mangaluru Taluk. He contends that he obtained an order from the Mangaluru Urban Development Authority to amalgamate both properties, pursuant to which a single site plan was approved. Upon such approval, he sought a licence and sanction of a building plan from the Mangaluru Urban Development Authority. The petitioner claims that permission was granted by the said Authority and thereafter the building plan was sanctioned by the Permude Village Panchayath and Bajpe Village Panchayath.

(ii) The petitioner states that he constructed the building in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated under the sanctioned plan and the licence. He further states that, for the purpose of providing safety, security, and additional usable space to the residents, he put up a covering over the terrace. After the petitioner installed sheets over the terrace area, respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 27.12.2017 alleging that the petitioner had put up an additional floor in violation of the sanctioned plan and the licence and directed the petitioner to stop the construction.

(iii) After receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted a reply on 01.01.2018 stating that he had not put up any extra floor as contended therein. He further stated that he did not violate any of the terms of the sanctioned plan or the licence granted. Respondent No.4 thereafter issued an endorsement dated 08.02.2018 stating that even for covering the terrace, the petitioner was required to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the Mangaluru Urban Development Authority. The petitioner challenged the said endorsement before respondent No.3 in Appeal No.TAPAMAM:TP:May-14/17-18/M.G. The Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.3 directed the Assistant Executive Engineer to examine the matter and submit a report. Accordingly the Assistant Executive Engineer submitted a report stating that the building consisted of four floors and that the petitioner had installed galvalume sheets on the terrace. On the basis of the said report, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 03.06.2019 to take suitable action and to ensure necessary arrangements are made for disposal of waste generated in the building. After disposal of the appeal, the petitioner approached respondent No.4 and the Bajpe Village Panchayath seeking issuance of a No Objection Certificate for securing electricity connection and for allotment of a door number to the building.

(iv) After receipt of the representation, respondent No.3 contrary to the order passed by the Executive Officer passed a resolution dated 13.06.2019 stating that it had decided to file a review petition against the order passed by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat. The petitioner again approached the Appellate Authority and the Chief Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat, Mangaluru requesting that a direction be issued to respondent No.4. Based on the above, the Chief Exe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top