SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19701

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.I.ARUN
MR. B. R. SOMAYAJI – Appellant
Versus
MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION – Respondent
WP 57849/2017



##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16177 WP No. 57849 of 2017

HC-KAR

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

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 57849 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

MR. B. R. SOMAYAJI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

S/O LATE B.KRISHNA SOMAYAJI, PROPRIETOR,

M/S S.L.BUILDERS, 6TH FLOOR, ESSEL TOWERS, BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD,

MANGALURU. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION CITY CORPORATION BUILDING, Digitally signed

by LALBAGH, MANGALURU - 575 001, CHAITHANYA K BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

Location: High Court of …RESPONDENT Karnataka

(BY SRI. K.V. NARASIMHA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-G DATED 20.4.2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. QUASH ANNEXURE-H DATED 29.8.2017 IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.24/2009 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALURU AND ETC.,

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16177 WP No. 57849 of 2017

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH

VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

Action has been initiated against the petitioner by

the respondent on the ground that the petitioner has put up illegal construction on the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition. This resulted in the petitioner preferring Miscellaneous Appeal No.24/2009 before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru. However, the same has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the

same, the present writ petition is filed.

2. In the instant writ petition, a writ of certiorari is

sought to quash the order passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.24/2009 by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru and also the impugned order dated 20.04.2009

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16177 WP No. 57849 of 2017

HC-KAR

produced at Annexure-G to the writ petition, passed by the

respondent.

3. The petitioner, in the course of the arguments,

admitted that he has put up construction on the property in violation of the building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan. However, it is submitted that, in the light of certain property of the petitioner being relinquished in favour of the respondent for formation of a road, the petitioner is entitled to Transferable Development Rights (for short, 'the TDR'). It is further submitted that the petitioner has made the necessary applications to the respondent, and that the construction on the property can be saved / regularized if such TDR are granted in favour of the

petitioner as requested.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the

respondent, upon instructions, submits that they do not have the details pertaining to the TDR that the petitioner would be entitled to. However, he submits that if the petitioner were to make a detailed representation

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16177 WP No. 57849 of 2017

HC-KAR

regarding the TDR to which he claims entitlement, the same would be considered and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with law. He further submits that irrespective of it, certain deviations are not permissible in law. However, he submits that if the petitioner were to make a detailed representation regarding the manner in which he can save the present illegal construction made by him, an appropriate decision would be taken in accordance

with law.

5. His submission is placed on record.

6. Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is hereby disposed of.

(ii) The petitioner is given three (03) weeks time

from today to make a detailed representation to the respondent authorities regarding the extent of the TDR to which he is entitled, as

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16177 WP No. 57849 of 2017

HC-KAR

well as for regularization of the illegal

construction put up by him.

(iii) If such representation is made within a period

of three (03) weeks from today, the respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon. Only t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top