Sri. Balasubramanya Vs the Mysore City Corporation

SRI.BALASUBRAMANYA S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.485, 4^TH MAIN 18^TH CROSS, VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU - 570001 SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED

¶10

SRI.JAIPRAKASH

¶11

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.485, 4^TH MAIN 18^TH CROSS, VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU - 570001 SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI.GIRISH KUMAR B M, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE MYSORE CITY CORPORATION MYSORE - 570024 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24799 WP No. 19837 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER ZONAL OFFICE NO.1 THE MYSORE CITY CORPORATION MYSORE - 570024

¶20

THE JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THE MYSORE CITY CORPORATION MYSORE - 570024

¶21

SRI. S.R. MURALI S/O LATE S.V.RAJARATNAM AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.486, 4^TH MAIN 18^TH A - CROSS OPP. BANK OF BARODA STERLING TALKIES ROAD VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU - 570001

¶22

SMT. K. VEENA W/O S.R. MURALI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.486, 4^TH MAIN 18^TH A - CROSS OPP. BANK OF BARODA STERLING TALKIES ROAD VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU - 570001

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT.GEETHA DEVI M.P, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI.Y.N.NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.4 AND C/R.5)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2025 PASSED IN M.A NO.62/2023 BY THE

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:24799 WP No. 19837 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioners are assailing the order dated 21.06.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority in M.A.No.62/2023, wherein the petitioners' appeal is dismissed for having failed to implead respondent Nos.4 and 5 despite the directions issued by the Appellate Authority. The said order is under challenge.

¶34

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for private respondent Nos.4 and 5 and learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶35

The present case reflects a clear instance of

¶36

laxity and non-compliance on the part of the petitioners.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24799 WP No. 19837 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The records disclose that the petitioners, having suffered an order under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (for short, the 'KMC Act'), had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. It is evident that the appeal was filed without impleading the private respondents, who are the adjoining property owners and also the complainants in the demolition proceedings, and are therefore necessary parties.

¶40

Subsequently, the private respondents filed an application seeking impleadment before the Appellate Authority. The order passed allowing the said impleading application was challenged by the petitioners before this Court in W.P.No.25882/2023, which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn. Despite the withdrawal of the writ petition, the petitioners did not take steps to amend the appeal memo so as to implead private respondent Nos.4 and 5, in compliance with the Appellate Authority’s order. This continued defiance, even after the impleading application was allowed, led the Appellate Authority to

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:24799 WP No. 19837 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

dismiss the appeal, noting the conduct of the petitioners as willfully non-cooperative.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, now sought to persuade this Court by giving an undertaking that the appeal memo will be promptly amended and the private respondents will be impleaded in compliance with the order passed on the impleading application. While this Court is not oblivious to the petitioners’ past conduct, which is both unfair and indicative of a deliberate attempt to delay and frustrate the appellate process, it is also mindful of the fact that the petitioners have suffered a demolition order and the appeal was dismissed not on merits, but solely on procedural grounds.

¶46

Having regard to the rights of the petitioners over the immovable property and in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to grant them one final opportunity to pursue their statutory remedy. However, in view of their

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:24799 WP No. 19837 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

conduct, this indulgence is granted subject to payment of costs.

¶51

Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to impose costs of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioners, payable to respondent Nos.4 and 5 on the next date of hearing before the Appellate Authority. The appeal shall be restored to file, subject to compliance with the above direction and impleadment of respondent Nos.4 and 5 as parties to the appeal.

¶52

For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶55

(ii) The impugned order dated 21.06.2025 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in M.A.No.62/2023, vide Annexure-A, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:24799 WP No. 19837 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

appeal in M.A. No.62/2023 stands restored.

¶60

(iii) The petitioners are directed to carry out the necessary amendment within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall also pay a cost of Rs.5,000/to respondent Nos.4 and 5 on the next date of hearing before the Appellate Court.

¶61

(iv) Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, no further notice shall be issued. The petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall appear before the Appellate Court on 21.07.2025 without fail.

¶62

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶63

NBM

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Sri. Balasubramanya v. the Mysore City Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Balasubramanya v. the Mysore City Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Chef Talk Food and Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Commissioner

Sri Channappa B M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri E Bhaskar Vs State of Karnataka

Janardhan Rao Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Karim Amzad Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Srinivas N S Vs the State of Karnataka