IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 10213 OF 2019 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. ALWYN EDWIN SOANS S/O LATE E W SOANS AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

2. MRS LAVITA SALINA SONAS W/O ALWYN EDWIN SOANS R/A DOOR NO.3-9-679/1 NEAR PADAVA HIGH SCHOOL BEJAI POST, MANGALORE-570004 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION , Digitally signed LALBAGH , MANGALORE – 570 004 by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA

2. SMT SUPREETHA G SHETTY Location: HIGH COURT OF W/OO GANESH SHETTY KARNATAKA SRI RAGHUNANDAN NEAR PADUVA HIGH SCHOOL NANTHOOR , MANGALORE 570004 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V.NARASIMHAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.PRABHAKAR L.SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2018 IN M.A.NO.10/2017 ON THE FILE OF 6TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, D.K. MANGALURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the order dated 21-12-2018 in M.A. No. 10/2017 on the file of 6th Additional District and Session Judge, D.K. Mangaluru produced at Annexure A.

ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the order dated 28-01-2017 in No. E- 4/BA 67/2013-14 passed by the Commissioner, Mangaluru Municipal Corporation produced at Annexure B.

iii. Issue any other directions to meet the ends of justice.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the owners of the immoveable property bearing RS No.49-3A1AP measuring 42 feet east to west and 42 feet north to south situated at Padu Village within the limits of the Mangalore City Corporation. The petitioner had applied for a plan sanction to construct a residential house, which was so sanctioned on 01.10.2013. In furtherance of which the construction was carried out by the petitioner.

3. Respondent No.2 submitted a complaint that the construction which has been made by the petitioner is in violation of the plan sanction and as such proceedings were taken up. The initial survey having been made, it was found that there is a violation in respect to the setback area in terms of Annexure-D. However, when the proceedings were pending before respondent No.1, one other survey was directed to be carried out by the surveyor of respondent No.1. The said survey report is stated to have been submitted on 09.09.2015 stating that there is no violation of the setback area. However, there is an encroachment made by respondent No.2 into the property of the petitioner.

4. Despite the said survey report being furnished respondent No.1 took cognizance of the earlier survey report and held that the petitioner has violated the plan sanction and directed action in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 308 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. It is Challenging the same, the petitioner had filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.10 of 2017, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2018. It is challenging these two orders, that the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

5. Sri.Balakrishna Sastry., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that;

5.1. Neither respondent No.1 nor the appellate authority of the District Court has taken into consideration Annexure-E, the survey report which had been submitted while the proceedings were pending before respondent No.1 which categorically indicated that there is no Violation of the sanction plan made by the petitioner and that the construction is within the setback area.

5.2. He therefore submitted that there is no application of mind by either respondent No.1 or the District Court and as such, he submits that the petitio