Smt. Padma Vs the City Municipal Council

(BY SRI. H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI.B.VIJAY SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI.M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR CARRYING OUT ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION IN TERMS OF INTIMATION LETTER DATED:18.03.2025 IN NO.NASAMUM/TAMSHA/KAPA/2004-05 ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF RESPONDENT NO.1 CMC VIDE ANNEXURE-A, BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED:15.03.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to consider her representation dated 15.03.2025 and initiate appropriate proceedings against respondent No.2 as directed by the

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:44449 WP No. 9599 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Municipal Commissioner of respondent No.1 in terms of his letter bearing No.NaSaMum/TamSha/KaPa/2024-25 dated 18.03.2025.

¶32

(i) The petitioner contends that she is the owner of a property bearing No.2, 11^th cross, A.P.M.C. Road, V.V. Nagar, Kallahalli Layout, Mandya City. The respondent No.2 is her neighbour, who has constructed a house on the ground floor on the eastern side of her property. She alleges that the construction put up by the respondent No.2 is not supported on pillars. She claims that in violation of the building bye-laws and zonal regulations and without obtaining any licence and plan from the respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 has started constructing the first floor over the residential portion and a two storied commercial building. She contends that this might cause damage to her building and also endanger the petitioner and her family members, as there is every possibility of the building collapsing. The petitioner thereafter made necessary enquiry with the respondent No.1 whether the respondent No.2 had obtained permission to construct the building. She was made to understand that respondent No.1 had not issued any

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:44449 WP No. 9599 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

licence or plan enabling respondent No.2 to put up the construction. She therefore submitted a representation on 15.03.2025 to respondent No.1 bringing to his notice the construction put up by the respondent No.2.

¶37

(ii) Following this, the respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 18.03.2025 informing the respondent No.2 that after inspection, they noticed that a building was being constructed by respondent No.2 and therefore called upon him to produce the relevant documents and to stop the construction until then, failing which, action would be initiated under Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1964' for short).

¶38

(iii) The petitioner contends that though the respondent No.1 had directed the respondent No.2 to stop the construction, the respondent No.2 had in collusion with the officials of the respondent No.1 continued the construction. It is alleged that the respondent No.2 has also violated the setback norms as first and second floors encroached into the open space. The petitioner therefore is before this Court seeking for a direction

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:44449 WP No. 9599 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

to the respondent No.1 to take appropriate steps to stop the illegal construction being put up by the respondent No.2.

¶43

(i) The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.3, which has filed a statement of objections contending that the petitioner has rushed to this Court even without waiting for the respondent No.1 to take action. It has claimed that the petitioner had filed a representation on 15.03.2025 and has filed this petition on 24.03.2025. Therefore, it is contended that the respondent No.1 is not given enough time to even think over the representations submitted by the petitioner.

¶44

(ii) It is claimed that the respondent No.2 had obtained

¶45

a certification from a civil engineer that over the existing ground floor constructed in the year 2013 additional floors could be constructed. The respondent No.2 had also obtained a building construction licence from the panchayath on 17.03.2025 for putting up the first and second floor. He had also obtained a plan from respondent No.3. It is claimed that respondent No.2 issued a notice to the respondent No.1 on 18.03.2025 and the respondent No.2 provided the building licence, Form No.11A and 9 on 16.04.2025. The respondent

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:44449 WP No. 9599 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

No.3 was advised not to issue the khatha in respect of the property of respondent No.2 as it lay within the limits of respondent No.1 as per the minutes of the meeting of respondent No.1 dated 27.03.2025.

¶50

(iii) It is therefore contended that the construction put up by the respondent No.2 is in accordance with the licence and the apprehension of the petitioner that the building might collapse is without any basis, as respondent No.2 has taken all safeguards.

¶51

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a cloud whether the property where the respondent No.2 is putting up construction lies within the administrative control of the respondent No.1 or the respondent No.3, as the respondent No.2 has paid the water cess to the respondent No.1 indicating that all permissions and licences must be obtained from the respondent No.1 and not the respondent No.3. He therefore contends that even if the contention of the respondent No.3 is taken into account, then the respondent No.2 must have obtained licences from the respondent No.1.

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:44449 WP No. 9599 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

¶56

No.1 contends that in terms of a resolution passed by respondent No.1 dated 27.03.2025, the area where the respondent No.2 was putting up construction has now been handed over to the respondent No.3. He therefore contends that the licence granted by the respondent No.3 is just and proper.

¶57

The petitioner is the owner of the property, which is adjacent to the property owned by the respondent No.2, where he is putting up construction. The petitioner claims that the respondent No.2 could not have obtained a plan and licence from the respondent No.3, as the area is under the administrative control of the respondent No.1 and therefore, all plans and licences must be obtained from the respondent No.1. In this regard, he had submitted a representation to the respondent No.1 on 15.03.2025 and the respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 18.03.2025 calling upon the respondent No.2 to produce documents to justify the construction. The respondent No.1 was therefore bound to take up necessary follow-up action to verify whether the respondent No.3 was

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44449 WP No. 9599 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

authorized to grant a licence and sanction a plan enabling the respondent No.2 to put up construction or whether the respondent No.1 was alone entitled to sanction such plans and issue such licences. The respondent No.1 having issued the letter dated 18.03.2025, could not have kept quiet but must have followed it up by taking necessary proceedings against the respondent No.2.

¶61

In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed off on the following terms:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i. The petition is disposed off .

¶64

ii. The respondent No.1 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.03.2025 and also take necessary action in accordance with law if it is found that the construction put up by the respondent No.2 is not in accordance with law or it violates any building bye-laws or zonal regulations.

¶65

This shall be complied by the respondent No.1 within a period of three months from the date of

¶66