Smt Priya Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:53171 WP No. 31608 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31608 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PRIYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O S. MANI, R/O MASKAL MATTI, KASABA HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577598

¶8

SRI. H.R VEERESH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE H.V RUDRANNA, R/O. VEERABHADRESHWARA NILAYA 1^ST FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS, GANDHI LAYOUT, HULIYAR ROAD CROSS, HIRAYURU TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577598.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 4^TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-01

¶14

THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HIRIYUR TOWN, HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577598, BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:53171 WP No. 31608 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶20

SRI. S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE/COMMUNICATION DATED 17.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.HI.NA.SA.NYA. SHAKHE/CR:02/2025-26 ON THE 1^ST PETITIONER PRODUCED ANNEXURE-J, NOTICE/COMMUNICATION AS DATED 14.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.HI.NA.SA.NYA.SHAKHE/CR:01/2025-26 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-K AND NOTICE/COMMUNICATION DATED 14.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.HI.NA.SA.NYA. SHAKHE/CR:01/2025-26 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L BOTH ON THE 2^ND PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the communications bearing

¶26

(i) No.».£À.¸À:£Áå.±ÁSÉ/¹Dgï:02/2025-26 dated 17.05.2025,

¶27

(ii) No.».£À.¸À:£Áå.±ÁSÉ/¹Dgï:01/2025-26 dated 14.05.2025,

¶28

(iii) No.».£À.¸À:£Áå.±ÁSÉ/¹Dgï:01/2025-26 dated 14.05.2025, all issued

¶29

by respondent No.2. They also have sought for a writ in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondents-authorities to demolish their buildings existing on the schedule properties.

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:53171 WP No. 31608 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

(i) The petitioners contend that they are the owners of properties situate within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2, having lawfully purchased them in terms of the sale deeds dated 05.05.2014 and 21.06.2016. They state that they obtained the sanction of plan for construction of buildings thereon and constructed the buildings in accordance with the plan. The said buildings are assessed to property tax by respondent No.2. It is further contended that after completion of construction, the petitioners let out the premises for commercial purposes. The petitioners claim that the properties are situate on the main road leading to Hiriyur city and connect Huliyaru road. They contend that they have not encroached into the road or the road margin at any point in time.

¶34

(ii) They claim that during the year 2010, a drive was undertaken to widen the aforesaid road, pursuant to which the respondents attempted to demolish the buildings of the petitioners without following due process of law. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.12590-12612/2010. The said writ petitions were disposed off directing the respondent-authorities to issue notice

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53171 WP No. 31608 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

to the owners of the buildings and conduct an enquiry to decide whether there was any encroachment.

¶38

(iii) The petitioners claim that none of the respondents have undertaken the aforesaid exercise. However, it is contended that the respondents have marked their buildings along side the road with a view to widen the road by 21 metres from the centre of the road on either side. The petitioners contend that they have approached they respondents and requested them not to demolish the buildings and if they need any portion they have to be acquire it the manner known to law. The petitioners further contend that respondent No.2 issued notices dated 14.05.2025 and 17.05.2025, wherein it was alleged that the petitioners had constructed the buildings in excess of the permission granted and that they have failed to produce the building licence and approved plan, and that the technical staff submitted a report along with a sketch indicating that the construction was in violation of the building plan. The petitioners state that they submitted their explanation in response to the said notices.

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:53171 WP No. 31608 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

(iv) The petitioners contend that a meeting was held in the office of the Planning Director, District Town Planning Authority, Chitraduraga on 06.08.2024 wherein it was decided that buildings constructed along the said road within a distance of 30 metres from the centre of the road on either side shall be demolished, as the same was stated to be necessary to widen the road, which found mention in the village map of Hiriyur village, which was of the year 1901. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners again approached this Court in W.P.No.16951/2025 wherein this Court directed the respondents not to demolish the construction. When the said writ petition came up for consideration on 18.09.2025, this Court noticed that respondent No.2 had not passed any order directing demolition of any portion of the petitioners' property. Therefore, this Court directed the petitioners to approach respondent No.2, and respondent No.2 was directed to pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioners.

¶43

(v) The petitioners claim that they appeared before respondent No.2 on 13.10.2025 as directed. However, the Commissioner of respondent No.2 refused to even look into the order passed by this Court. The petitioners are therefore before

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53171 WP No. 31608 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

this Court challenging the notices issued by respondent No.2 dated 14.05.2025 and 17.05.2025.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned action of respondent No.2 violates the constitutional right guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. He contends that if respondent No.2 requires any portion of the petitioners' property, the same would have to be in accordance with law and that the respondents cannot demolish the construction merely on the ground that it lies within the road margin. He further contends that the respondents are trying to apply the village map of Hiriyur village of the year 1901, without taking into account the subsequent developments. He also contends that the respondents propose to widen the road by 21 metres on either side from the centre line, while the width of the road has always been 50 feet from the centre of the road on either side. With these and other contentions, he contends that the impugned notices issued by respondent No.2 are without reference to the relevant documents and that respondent No.2 has not followed the directions issued by this Court.

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:53171 WP No. 31608 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of a revision before the Regional Commissioner. He submits that the petitioners without availing the alternative remedy, have approached this Court. He therefore, prays that the petition be dismissed on this ground. In support of this contention, he relied upon a notification dated 09.01.2015 issued by the State Government delegating the powers under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1964') in so far as City Municipal Council is concerned to the Regional Commissioner. He therefore, submits that the petitioners are liable to be relegated to the Regional Commissioner.

¶52

The learned counsel for the petitioners however contends that a coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.103089/2021 considered the very same question and had returned a finding of fact that the competent authority under Section 322 of the Act, 1964 is not the Regional Commissioner but the Director of Municipal Administration. He contends that similarly placed persons had approached the Director of Municipal Administration based on the directions of

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:53171 WP No. 31608 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

this Court in W.P.No.103089/2021 and the Director of Municipal Administration has refused to entertain the petition under Section 322 of Act, 1964 and directed them to approach the Regional Commissioner. He therefore, contends that a remedy of a revision before the Regional Commissioner is not efficacious and prays that petition be taken up for disposal.

¶56

I have considered the submissions of learned

¶57

counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶58

A perusal of Section 322 of the Act, 1964 indicates that the power of revision is vested with the State Government. The State Government by notification dated 09.01.2015, has delegated the revisional power under Section 322 of the Act, 1964 to the Regional Commissioner. Therefore, the impugned notices issued by respondent No.2 would have to be called in question before the Regional Commissioner. The judgment of a co-ordinate bench relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.103089/2021, would not help the petitioners as the said order was passed in the light of a notification dated 20.08.2003 and not the subsequent

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:53171 WP No. 31608 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

notification dated 09.01.2015. Consequently, it is the Regional Commissioner who is vested with the revisional power under Section 322 of the Act, 1964 and not the Director of Municipal Administration. The orders passed by the Director of Municipal Administration in similar cases which are placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioners, reestablishes the fact that it is the Regional Commissioner who is the competent authority.

¶62

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

¶63

respondent No.2 whenever an alternative remedy is available, the petitioners are required to avail such remedy unless they are able to demonstrate that the said remedy is not efficacious or that the action of the respondent No.2 has infringed any of their fundamental rights.

¶64

In the instant case, the petitioners are not able to establish as to how the power of revision under Section 322 of the Act, 1964 is not efficacious and alternative. They have also alleged that their fundamental rights have been affected by the impugned action of respondent No.2.

¶65

10 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:53171 WP No. 31608 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of a revision petition before the Regional Commissioner. It is open for the petitioners to approach the Regional Commissioner in accordance with law. Until the Regional Commissioner decides the revision petition that may be filed, no action shall be taken to demolish the construction put up by the petitioner. If the revision petition is filed by the petitioners within a month from now, the Regional Commissioner shall dispose off the same within a period of three months thereafter. It is made clear that if the petitioners do not avail the remedy, the respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

¶69

In view of disposal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand rejected.

¶70

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶71

HJ

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Smt Priya v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Priya v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Sri Narasaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Nanje Gowda. S. M. Vs the Panchayat Development Officer

Sri Bimaaiah N M Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Tejashree L Vs State of Karnataka

G.D.A Foundation Trust Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.N. Komala Vs the Chief Officer