Dismissed¶48

Sri Darshan H R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2025WP/12602/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed; unauthorised construction; setback violation; Town Municipal Council Kadur; building licence KDR-LBPAS-10916/2024-25/BP; mandamus; representations not acted upon; Assistant Engineer measurement report; petitioner in excess possession of sale-deed land; boundary/title dispute pending in O.S. No.859/2024 (perpetual injunction); interim injunction refused; Miscellaneous Appeal No.3/2025 rejected; W.P. No.3604/2025 measurement direction; Articles 226 and 227; LB-RES; municipal enforcement deferred pending civil adjudication; Karnataka High Court 2025.

What did the court decide?

Unless the question whether the excess area belongs to the petitioner or to respondent Nos.3 and 4 is adjudicated in the civil suit, respondent No.2 cannot be directed to take action on the representations submitted by the petitioner. ¶47

Sri Darshan H R Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos.1 and 2 ought to be directed (mandamus) to consider the petitioner's representations and take action against respondent Nos.3 and 4 for construction allegedly in violation of the sanctioned plan and the conditions of licence KDR-LBPAS-10916/2024-25/BP dated 06.01.2025. +1 more

¶26

Ratio / Principle

¶47

Key takeaways

On that view the petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law soon after disposal of the suit (printed in the order as 'O.S. No.259/ 2024'); all contentions kept open.ratio¶48
Observation that the petitioner, for reasons unknown, did not disclose the pendency of the suit (O.S. No.859/2024) in the writ petition.obiter¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NC 2025:KHC:47110 | High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), R. Nataraj, J., 13-11-2025, WP No. 12602 of 2025 (LB-RES) — Darshan H.R., owner of an adjacent property, sought mandamus directing the State (Directorate of Municipal Administration) and Town Municipal Council, Kadur to act on his representations (31-01-2025, 14-02-2025, 10-03-2025) against Nandisha and Ramesh for constructing without required setbacks in violation of licence KDR-LBPAS-10916/2024-25/BP dated 06-01-2025, and against erring officials. Following a measurement directed in W.P. No. 3604/2025, the Assistant Engineer's report showed the petitioner himself possessed land in excess of his sale deed; since ownership of the excess area awaited adjudication in pending O.S. No. 859/2024 (perpetual injunction suit), the Court held respondent No.2 could not be directed to act on the representations. Petition dismissed; contentions kept open; liberty reserved to act after disposal of the suit (printed as 'O.S. No.259/2024').

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:47110 WP No. 12602 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12602 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI DARSHAN H.R. S/O RAJANNA H.M. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT BEHIND ANNAPURNA THEATRE, VENKATESHWARA NAGARA KADUR TALUK, KADUR, CHIKMAGALUR - 577548

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AKSHAY KUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9^TH AND 10^TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER, AMBEDKAR ROAD, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001

¶13

TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KADUR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, CPC COLONY, KADUR, CHIKMAGALUR - 577548

¶14

SRI. NANDISHA S/O MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47110 WP No. 12602 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

PANIPURI BUSINESS, INFRONT OF SBI BANK, K M ROAD, KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK, CHIKAMAGALUR - 577548

¶18

SRI. RAMESH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS CONTRACTOR, RENUKA CONSTRUCTIONS SOMESHWARA COMPLEX, MARANJI CIRCLE, OPPOSITE AMBEDKAR STATUE, KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577548

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KENCHEGOWDA H.K., ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. J.N.NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI. G.S.BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 2 TO CONSIDER AND TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS NOs.3 AND 4 FOR VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS IN THE LICENSE BEARING NO.KDR-LBPAS10916/2024-25/BP DATED 06.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND UNLAWFUL CONSTRUCTION AS MENTIONED IN REPRESENTATION DATED 31.01.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47110 WP No. 12602 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider his representation dated 31.01.2025 and take action against respondent Nos.3 and 4 for violation of the conditions of the licence bearing No.KDR-LBPAS-10916/2024-25/BP dated 06.01.2025 and also to direct respondent No.1 to take action against the concerned officials for failing to stop the unlawful construction.

¶27

The petitioner is the owner of a property adjacent

¶28

to the property belonging to respondent Nos.3 and 4. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 obtained sanction of a building plan and licence to construct a residential building on their property. The petitioner claims that respondent Nos.3 and 4 commenced construction without leaving the required setbacks. Therefore, being aggrieved by the illegal and unauthorised construction, he submitted a representation to respondent No.2 on 31.01.2025. It is stated that respondent Nos.3 and 4 in collusion with the officials of respondent No.2, continued the construction. The petitioner thereafter submitted further

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47110 WP No. 12602 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

representations on 14.02.2025 and 10.03.2025 to take action against respondent Nos.3 and 4. Since no action is taken, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid relief.

¶32

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the plan is sanctioned by respondent No.2, and when the petitioner being the adjoining property owner, had informed respondent No.2 that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are putting up construction in violation of the sanctioned plan, it is incumbent upon respondent No.2 to take action and ensure that the construction is in conformity with the sanctioned plan and the applicable building bye-laws. He submits that respondent No.2 despite being duty-bound to act, has deliberately failed to initiate any action and therefore seeks suitable directions to respondent No.2.

¶33

(i) The learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed for more than one reason, namely, that the petitioner had filed O.S No.859/2024 for perpetual injunction, where an application for interim injunction was refused by the Trial Court and Miscellaneous Appeal No.3/2025 filed therefrom was also

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47110 WP No. 12602 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

rejected. He contends that the petitioner deliberately did not disclose the above particulars and has filed this writ petition innocuously seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to consider the representations and initiate action against the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶37

(ii) He further submits that this Court in W.P. No.3604/2025 had directed the Chief Officer to appoint a Technical Officer of the City Municipal Council to measure the properties of the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and pursuant thereto, the Assistant Engineer has prepared a sketch and submitted it to the Chief Officer, who in turn has placed the report before this Court. The said report indicates that the petitioner is in possession of land in excess of the extent mentioned in the sale deed. He therefore submits that the issue whether the excess land belongs to respondent Nos.3 and 4 is to be adjudicated in the pending suit and consequently, no directions can be issued to respondent No.2 in this writ petition.

¶38

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47110 WP No. 12602 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶41

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed O.S. No.859/2024 for perpetual injunction against respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the said suit is pending consideration. The petitioner for reasons unknown has not disclosed the pendency of the suit in this writ petition.

¶42

Be that as it may, this Court in W.P. No.3604/2025

¶43

had directed the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, to appoint a technical person to measure the properties of the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4. Pursuant to the said direction, the Assistant Engineer measured the properties of both parties and submitted a report to the Chief Officer, who in turn has placed the same before this Court.

¶44

A perusal of the report indicates that the petitioner is in possession of property in excess of what is mentioned in the sale deed. Therefore, unless the question whether the excess area belongs to the petitioner or respondent Nos.3 and

¶45

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47110 WP No. 12602 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

4 is adjudicated in civil suit, respondent No.2 cannot be directed to take action on the representations submitted by the petitioner.

¶48

In that view of the matter this petition is dismissed. It is open for the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law soon after the disposal of O.S. No.259/ 2024.

¶49