IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 34012 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. RADHAMANI H.S.

W/O. KUMARAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

R/A NO.5/1, E BLOCK,

NANDINI LAYOUT,

BENGALURU-560 096

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. GAONKAR DINESH NEELKANT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. NELAMANGALA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

NELAMANGALA CITY-562 123.

NELAMANGALA TALUK,

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER.

Digitally signed 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

by TO THE GOVERNMENT,

MARKONA HALLI

RAMU PRIYA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT. Location: HIGH VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560 001.

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

3. NELAMANGALA PLANNING AUTHORITY,

NELAMANGALA-562123.

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

SMT. SPOORTHY V., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR

RESPONDENT NO.2;

SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.CMCN/ENG.DIV/CR/84/2023-24 DATED 17.09.2025 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged a provisional order bearing No.£À¸À£É/EA±Á/¹Dgï/84/2023-24 dated 17.09.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.

2. The petitioner is the owner of a property on which he intended to put up construction and accordingly, obtained a plan for construction of a building. Respondent No.1 observed that the petitioner had undertaken construction in violation of the sanctioned plan and issued notices dated 07.07.2023, 19.08.2023 and 14.09.2023 calling upon the petitioner to furnish relevant documents. The petitioner did not furnish any documents to respondent No.1. Consequently, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order holding that the construction carried out by the petitioner is not in accordance with the sanctioned plan and granted fifteen days time to remove the unauthorised construction, failing which, appropriate action would be initiated. The petitioner has challenged the said notices before this Court in this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not receive any of the notices referred to in the impugned order. He therefore prays that the petitioner be granted an opportunity to furnish the requisite documents before respondent No.1 and that respondent No.1 be directed to take action only after inspecting the building in question.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that despite the best efforts by respondent No.1, the petitioner did not furnish the requisite documents. Consequently, respondent No.1 had no option but to proceed in accordance with Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. He therefore submits that no indulgence is warranted in this petition. He further submits that respondent No.1 would pass a confirmation order, which the petitioner may challenge before the Municipal Commissioner under Sections 343 of Karnataka Municipalities Act.

5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1.

6. The impugned notice was issued consequent to the petitioner's failure to furnish documents pursuant to the notices dated 07.07.2023, 19.08.2023 and 14.09.2023 issued by respondent No.1. Since the petitioner contends that he did not receive any of the said notices, he deserves an opportunity to furnish the requisite documents to respondent No.1 in support of the construction put up by him. Respondent No.1 may thereafter examine the construction and verify whether it is in accordance with law and the sanctioned plan.

7. Hence the writ petition stands disposed off and the notice dated 17.09.2