##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16275 WP No. 34294 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

WRIT PETITION NO.34294 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. UMA K.

W/O. SRI. GANGADAR M.

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRA PROVISION STORE

OPP. GANAPATHI PENDAL YT ROAD, TIPTUR ROAD

TURUVEKERE, TUMAKURU - 572 227.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. NIKHIL HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally

1. PATTANA PANCHAYAT signed by TURUVEKERE GEETHA P G

TUMKRU - 572 227 Location:

REP. BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.

HIGH COURT OF …RESPONDENT KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH PRASAD V., ADVOCATE)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.11.2024 MADE BY THE PETITIONER AND GRANT POST-FACTO BUILDING LICENCE AND

SANCTION PLAN (ANNEXURES-A AND A1); ETC.

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16275 WP No. 34294 of 2024

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER

WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner has put up construction without obtaining the necessary sanctioned plan from the respondent/authority. On the allegation that the construction is put up not only without obtaining the necessary sanctioned plan, but it has been put up in violation of the building bye-laws and also by encroaching a portion of the property of her neighbour, one Sri Vijay Ashok Kumar preferred W.P.No.15597/2022. In the said writ petition, the petitioner herein took up a contention that even if the building is not constructed in accordance with law, the demolition can take place only in accordance with law and not otherwise. After hearing the parties, this Court in

W.P.No.15597/2022 has passed the following order:

"ORDER

i. The writ petition is partly allowed.

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16275 WP No. 34294 of 2024

HC-KAR

ii. Respondent No.1 is directed to issue necessary notice in terms of Subsection (3) of Section 64 of the Panchayat Raj Act within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order specifying the excess construction and or violations which are required to be rectified by respondent No.2, if any. Respondent No.2 shall reply to the same within 15 days

from the date of receipt of such notice.

iii. Respondent No.1 shall pass orders thereon within a period of 15 days thereafter.

iv. Respondent No.2 shall not carry out any construction until orders are passed by

respondent No.1."

2. Thereafter, it is submitted by the respondent that the notices have been issued as directed by this Court in W.P.No.15597/2022 and a provisional order also has been passed under the provisions of Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. Aggrieved by the same, the present

writ petition is filed.

3. The case of the petitioner is that by inadvertence, she has put up a construction without obtaining the necessary sanctioned plan. However, she submits that the building is not

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16275 WP No. 34294 of 2024

HC-KAR

in violation of the building bye-laws and that she is open for inspection of the building by the respondent. She further undertakes that in the inspection, if it is found that the petitioner has put up construction in violation of the building bye-laws, then in that event, she is willing to remove that portion of the construction, which is in violation of the building bye-laws. She further submits that with regard to the construction put up in accordance with law, a direction may be

issued to the respondent to grant necessary sanctioned plan.

4. The neighbour at whose instance the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner has filed an impleading application to be impleaded as respondent no.2. He submits that he would be satisfied, if the encroachment on his land is removed and if the petitioner puts up a construction in accordance with