Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 7134

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N S SANJAY GOWDA: J
VIJAYANAGARA 4TH STAGE SENIOR CITIZEN WELFARE ASSOCIATION – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 26417 OF 2023 (LB-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 34330 OF 2024 (LB-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 34361 OF 2024 (LB-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 1427 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY., ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI.H.C.SHIVARAMU., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SMT.M.P.GEETHA DEVI., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI.G.M.ANANDA., ADVOCATE

The government has the discretion to constitute municipal areas under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, and residents cannot demand jurisdiction under a specific authority based on perceived service quality.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1976 - Sections 3, 9, 29, and 30 - Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 - The petitioners challenged the notifications concerning the inclusion of their area in the City Municipal Council, arguing it would lead to a decline in municipal standards and maintenance. The court found no legal right for residents to demand jurisdiction under a specific authority, affirming the government's discretion in constituting municipal areas. (Paras 2, 38, 40)

Findings of Court:
The notifications were issued in compliance with the KM Act, and the petitioners' claims were dismissed. (Paras 40, 44)

Issues: Whether the inclusion of the petitioners' area in the City Municipal Council was arbitrary and illegal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the government acted within its powers under the KM Act, and the petitioners could not dictate municipal jurisdiction based on perceived service quality.

Result: All writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners challenge notifications regarding municipal jurisdiction changes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioners seek clearance certificates for properties from muda. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9)
3. muda's responsibilities and authority under the kuda act clarified. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. criteria for constituting smaller urban areas outlined in km act. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. objections must align with km act criteria for urban area designation. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. petitioners' concerns about service quality and property value addressed. (Para 30 , 31)
7. no legal right to demand specific municipal jurisdiction. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
8. government's discretion in urban area designation upheld. (Para 38 , 39)
9. writ petitions dismissed; responsibilities for property assessment clarified. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner in W.P. No.26417 of 2023— Vijayanagara 4^th Stage Senior Citizen Welfare Association is a Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act and seeks to espouse the cause of the residents of Vijayanagara 4^th Stage.

2. The petitioner is challenging the notification dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 357 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act , 1976 (for short, ‘the KM Act’), by which Hinkal Gram Panchayat has been included within the small urban area, which has been specified as the City Municipal Council (“CMC”) area, Hootagalli village.

3. The petitioner is also challenging the notification dated 27.05.2021 by which an Administrator has been appointed for the CMC, Hootagalli pending the constitution of the said CMC.

4. A prayer is also made for issuance of a direction to consider the representations dated 07.08.2023 and 09.08.2023, copies of which are produced at Annexures ‘J’, ‘H’ and ‘K’ respectively, the petitioner has requested the Mysore Mahanagara Palike as well as the Government to continue the Vijayanagara 4^th stage of Mysore city to be under the authority and jurisdiction of Mysore Urban Development Authority (“MUDA”) and Mysore City Corporation.

5. W.P. No.34330 of 2024, W.P. No.34361 of 2024 and W.P. No.1427 of 2025 are filed by the petitioners, who have put up a construction and have approachedMUDA for issuance of a clearance certificate, fixation of tax and issuance of an E-Asthi in respect of their sites which have been formed by the MUDA.

6. It is their case that their request have not been considered and the reason being put forth is that, the said duty is to be carried out by the City Municipal Council, Hootagalli.

7. All these writ petitions are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order, since the issues involved are similar.

8. It is the case of the petitioners that their properties are situated in a layout which was developed by the MUDA from the year 1998 onwards. They contend that once the layout is formed by the MUDA, it can only be handed over to the Mysore City Corporation and by the impugned notification, the Government is attempting to bring this area i.e., the layout formed by the MUDA called Vijayanagara 4the Stage under the jurisdiction of CMC, Hootagalli, which is illegal.

9. The petitioners contend that if their area is brought within the CMC, Hootagalli, there would be a decline in the maintenance of municipal standards as the manner in which the area was being taken care of by the MUDA cannot be replicated by the CMC.

10. It is sought to be argued that the quality of administration of a statutory authority like MUDA would be far superior than the supervision by the CMC, which is a smaller urban area, given the fact that the its funds and its personnel are limited.

11. The MUDA was constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act , 1987 (for short, ‘the KUDA Act’) which required the MUDA to undertake the preparation and execution of a development scheme. The provisions of the Act require the MUDA to formulate a scheme, acquire

Click Here to Read the rest of this document