Sri. K. Keshava Acharya Vs the Commissioner — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri. K. Keshava Acharya Vs the Commissioner — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the writ petition was disposed off as not surviving, with the Court observing that it is open to the auction purchaser to challenge the orders in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the appellate order dated 15.07.2017, the respondent's removal direction dated 13.04.2012 and the notice dated 03.11.2017 survives for consideration when the petitioner states he has lost interest in the property, which has been taken over by a mortgagee bank proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Court's answer

If the petitioner has lost interest in the property, he cannot pursue the writ petition; the petition therefore does not survive for consideration.

Key takeaways

It is open to the auction purchaser to challenge the order passed by the respondent and the Tribunal in accordance with law.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by a property owner challenging the order dated 15.07.2017 of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, in Miscellaneous Appeal No.21/2012 rejecting his appeal under Section 443-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act against the Mangaluru City Corporation Commissioner's order dated 13.04.2012 (E2-C.R.98/2009-2010) directing removal of an unauthorised additional floor and sheet roof (confirming the temporary order dated 30.09.2009), and a notice dated 03.11.2017 for removal of sheet roofs within 7 days. Counsel submitted that proceedings had been initiated under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, that the Appellate Tribunal appeal was dismissed, and that the property had been taken over by a mortgagee bank proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and brought to sale, so the petitioner had lost interest. Holding that a petitioner who has lost interest in the property cannot pursue the petition, the Court disposed of the writ petition as not surviving for consideration, observing that it remains open to the auction purchaser to challenge the respondent's and the Tribunal's orders in accordance with law.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45590 WP No. 55143 of 2017

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 55143 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. K. KESHAVA ACHARYA S/O. LATE MONAPPA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, FLAT NO. 61, MANGALADEVI, MANGALANAGAR, MANGALURU - 575001.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION, LALBAGH, MANGALURU-575 003.

…RESPONDENT

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. A.K. VASANTH AND SRI. D.V. GIRISH, ADVOCATES)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA IN MISC. APPEAL NO.21/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER THEREBY REJECTING THE APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 443-A OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT AND THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2012 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN PROCEEDINGS IN E2-C.R.98/2009-2010 THEREBY DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO REMOVE THE UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL FLOOR AND THE SHEET ROOF WITHIN 15 DAYS BY CONFIRMING THE TEMPORARY ORDER DATED 30.09.2009 AND ALSO THE NOTICE DATED 03.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR REMOVAL OF SHEET ROOFS WITHIN 7 DAYS WHICH ARE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURES - A, B, B1 RESPECTIVELY.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45590 WP No. 55143 of 2017

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 15.07.2017 passed by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, in Miscellaneous Appeal No.21/2012 as well as an order passed by the respondent in proceedings No.E2-CR 98/2009-2010 dated 13.04.2012.

The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that the respondent had initiated proceedings under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, against the construction put up by the petitioner. He contends that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed. He submits that property of the petitioner is taken over by a Bank, which had granted financial assistance on the security of the property and that it had initiated proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and brought the property for sale. He therefore, submits that the petitioner is no longer interested in

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45590 WP No. 55143 of 2017

HC-KAR

the property. He however, contends that the respondent may

be directed to notify the auction purchaser.

If the petitioner has lost interest in the property, he cannot pursue this petition. In that view of the matter, this petition does not survive for consideration for the present. However, it is open for the auction purchaser to challenge the order passed by the respondent and the Tribunal in accordance with law.

The writ petition stands disposed off on the above

terms.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

PMR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49