IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 32786 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. B. SAMI ULLA KHAN

S/O LATE B.P BASHEER AHMED KHAN,

AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.750,

BANNI MANTAP B LAYOUT,

SS NAGAR, MYSORE-570015

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONGWITH

SRI. CHAND PASHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER

MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (MCC),

ZONE OFFICE-7, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,

MYSURU-570001

Digitally signed

by

MARKONAHALLI

2. MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA)

RAMU PRIYA

Location: HIGH LAXMIBHAI ROAD, LAKSHMIPURAM,

COURT OF

MYSURU-570005

KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

ZONE OFFICE-7, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,

MYSURU-570001

4. SRI. SUBHAN KHAN, S/O LATE MASOOM KHAN,

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.104, 2^ND CROSS,

BANNIMANTAP 'C' LAYOUT MYSURU-570015 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. M.P.GEETHA DEVI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. G.B.SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;

SRI. PRAVEEN M.T., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROVISIONAL ORDER/TATKALIKA AAGNE DATED 09.10.2025 BEARING NO. MY.NA. PAA/VA.AA.07/S.A/90/25-26 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 321(2) OF KMC ACT IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

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 an order bearing No.ªÉÄÊ£À.¥Á/ªÀ.D.07/¸À.C./90/25-26 dated 09.10.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 321(2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1976').

2. (i) The petitioner contends that he is the owner of the property bearing Site No.2 of Bannimantap 'C' Extension, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru. He claims that he was running an English Nursery and Higher Primary School in the aforesaid property and after demolishing the building, he started putting up construction in the above property after obtaining a plan and licence from the respondent No.1. The respondent No.4 is the owner of the property bearing Site No.104 of Bannimantap Extension, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru, which is adjacent to the property of the petitioner. It is contended that the respondent No.4 offered to purchase the property of the petitioner and when the petitioner refused, he threatened him that he would make him run from pillar to post. The respondent No.4 also filed O.S.No.1214/2024 to restrain the petitioner from putting up construction in the above property and he alleged therein that the petitioner had encroached 8 feet into his property. The petitioner claimed that the Trial Court rejected the application filed by the respondent No.4 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The respondent No.4 then filed an application for amendment of the suit, which was opposed by the petitioner and thereafter, respondent No.4 filed an application to withdraw the suit.

(ii) The petitioner claims that he had constructed the building in accordance with law. However, the respondent No.4 and his associates were harassing him. The petitioner claims that respondent No.4 filed W.P.No.12976/2025. The said writ petition was disposed off directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take necessary action in accordance with law after verifying the plan and construction in the site. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 without issuing show-cause notice has passed the impugned order under Section 321(2) of the Act, 1976 and has directed the petitioner to remove the illegal construction within seven days, failing which, the confirmation order would be passed under Section 321(3) of the Act, 1976. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the aforesaid order.

3. The learned