IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1145 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SADHASHIVA BHAT SON OF LATE. MADHAVA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 3/109A AMBHAGILU UPPUNDA VILLAGE, BYNDUR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT -576 232 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU., ADVOCATE)

Di gitally AND:

signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K

1. SURESH BHAT Location:

HIGH SON OF LATE MADHAVA BHAT, COURT OF AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, KARNATAKA RESIDING AT 3-105A, AMBHAGILU, UPPUNDA VILLAGE, BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT -576232.

2. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER UPPUNDA GRAMA PANCHAYATH UPPUNDA VILLAGE, BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT 576232

3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MESCOM, BYNDOOR CITY, BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576214 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF THE WRIT PETITION No. 36429/2024 (LB-RES) AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11TH FEBRUARY 2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION. No. 36429/2024 (LB-RES), ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.36429/2024.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. The petitioner had filed this writ petition praying for writ of mandamus commanding the Panchayath Development Officer, Uppunda Grama Panchayath to issue no objection certificate to the petitioner for electricity supply and assign door number to the building of the petitioner shown in the schedule.

4. The learned Single Judge having considered the facts, has rejected the application I.A.No.1/2025 filed by the applicant on the ground that if the applicant has any right over the property in question, he can initiate appropriate proceedings to secure his right over the property in question and if the site on which the petitioner had constructed the building gets allotted to the share of the applicant, who is none other than the brother of the petitioner, he would be entitled to utilize the same.

5. The brother of the petitioner is appellant before this Court. Neither the Electricity Department nor the Panchayath have approached this Court being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, therefore, considering the fact that it is the Panchayath who had granted the building licence to the petitioner to put up construction and therefore, the Panchayath would have to grant no objection certificate to the petitioner to enable him to secure electricity connection and assign a door number to the building. It has been however made clear that if the construction of the building in question is found to be contrary to any law, it would be open to the Panchayath to initiate action against the petitioner, but so long as the building licence was granted to the petitioner by the Panchayath, the petitioner could not be denied of his right to secure electricity connection.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the Panchayath has been directed to issue no objection certificate to the petitioner to enable him to secure electricity connection and the Panchayath has also been directed to assign door number to the building constructed by the petitioner. 7. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has made it clear that the grant of no objection certificate and assigning the number to the building constructed by the petitioner would not lead to an inference that the Panchayath has accepted the tiltle of the petitioner and the same would be subject to the result of any litigation that may e