Dismissed¶49

Smt. Shruthi Jois v. Mysuru City Corporation

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2025WP/31960/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Shruthi Jois v. Mysuru City Corporation; WP No. 31960 of 2025 (LB-RES); Karnataka HC Bengaluru; decided 02-12-2025; Justice R. Nataraj; mandamus refused; municipal authorities cannot be directed to act absent any provision of law binding them; alleged encroachment by neighbour respondents 5 and 6; Section 321 Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 mentioned in counsel's argument; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution; writ petition dismissed; petitioner left free to file civil suit; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

No direction can be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to perform an act which they are not bound to perform under any provision of law; counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any provision of law under which respondent Nos.1 to 3 are bound to act upon the representation to restore her property. ¶44

Smt. Shruthi Jois Vs Mysuru City Corporation — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:50211 WP No. 31960 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31960 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SHRUTHI JOIS AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS W/O LATE SHARATH JOIS R R/AT NO.2956, D-16 AND 16/1, 5^TH MAIN, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570002

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHIVARAMA BHAT O., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MYSURU CITY CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER NEXT TO BANUMAIAH COLLEGE, SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, AGARAHARA CHAMARAJAPURA, MYSURU-570024

¶14

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

¶15

ZONAL OFFICER ZONE NO.5 MYSURU CITY CORPORATION MYSURU-570024

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

¶17

J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU-570004

¶18

ZONAL COMMISSIONER ZONE-IV AND V MYSURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU-570004

¶19

DR. G.M. SANJEEV S/O LATE G.S. MOHAN REDDY

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:50211 WP No. 31960 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO 09, 8^TH MAIN SARASWATHIPURAM DEVARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU-570009

¶24

SRI JAYASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.124/A, 19^TH CROSS, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU-570002.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. GEETHADEVI M. PAPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶27

SRI. G.B.SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 TO TAKE AN ACTION IN PURSUANCE OF THE APPLICATION/COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18.09.2025, 13.10.2025 AND ANOTHER APPLICATION/COMPLAINT DATED 13.10.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, B AND C RESPECTIVELY.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take action pursuant to her complaints dated 18.09.2025 and 13.10.2025 respectively.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:50211 WP No. 31960 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The petitioner contends that she is the owner of

¶37

property bearing No.855 measuring east to west 38.25 metres and north to south 24 metres totally measuring 9.8 Sq.Mt. She contends that her husband was the owner of the said property and after his death, her name was entered in the property register maintained by respondent No.1. She contends that her neighbours (respondent Nos.5 and 6) encroached into a portion of her property by demolishing the existing compound wall and had put up a compound enclosing their property. She therefore submitted representations to respondent Nos.1 to 3 requesting them to intervene and restore her property. Since respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not take any action, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are required to obtain a sanctioned plan, before undertaking any construction. He further contends that, under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are empowered to take action against any construction carried out in violation of the sanctioned plan.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:50211 WP No. 31960 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent

¶43

Nos.3 and 4 submits that this is a private dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6, and that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have no role to play. He therefore contends that the petitioner is liable to be relegated back to the Civil Court, and no direction can be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner.

¶44

A perusal of the representation filed by the petitioner shows that she had alleged that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have encroached into a portion of her property after demolishing the existing compound wall and had put up a compound enclosing their property. The petitioner therefore requested respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take suitable action in accordance with law to restore her property. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any provision of law under which respondent Nos.1 to 3 are bound to act upon the representation to restore her property. Therefore, no direction can be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to perform an act which they are not bound to perform under any provision of law.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:50211 WP No. 31960 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48