Dismissed¶7

L a Belur (H.U.F) v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2026RP/447/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (M.I.ARUN, J., 02.04.2026) dismissed Review Petition No.447/2025 in W.P.No.33492/2024 (LB-RES) filed by L.A. BELUR (H.U.F) against the Commissioner, Hassan City Municipal Council: no error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 29.08.2025; petitioner not entitled to trade licence/E-Khatha for the entire unauthorised construction; authority duty-bound to remove the illegal structure. Keywords: review petition; Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; Article 226; unauthorised construction; building bye-laws; trade licence; E-khata; regularization.

What did the court decide?

The construction put up by the petitioner is illegal on the face of it. ¶3

L a Belur (H.U.F) Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶5

REVIEW PETITION NO.447 OF 2025

¶6

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.33492 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

L.A. BELUR (H.U.F) REPRESENTED BY CONSTITUENT AND COPARCENER SRI A.L. BELUR, S/O. L.A. BELUR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SHRI LAKSHMINARASIMHA COMPLEX, S.J.P. ROAD, K.R. PURAM, HASSAN - 573 201

¶10

ALSO RESIDING AT 501-502, KESHAVA C.H.S. LTD., BUILDING NO.2 JAYA NAGAR, LINK ROAD, DAHISAR (E), MUMBAI - 400 053.

¶11

… PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI H. MUJTABA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

AND :

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER HASSAN CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶16

… RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. G.M. ANANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 READ WITH ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.33492/2024 (LB-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY, TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.33492/2024 (LB-RES) AS PRAYED FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION ETC.

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10.03.2026 FOR ORDERS AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, M.I.ARUN J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶21

¶22

CAV ORDER

¶23

Aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.33492/2024, the petitioner therein has preferred this review petition.

¶24

Admittedly, the petitioner has put up construction on the property, in violation of the building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan. The petitioner, instead of co-operating with the authorities concerned in removing the illegal structure and bringing the building in conformity with the sanctioned plan and the building bye-laws, has indulged in several rounds of litigation. In W.P.No.33492/2024, based upon the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 18.12.2024, the following order has been passed:

¶25

"Sri P. S. Rajagopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in continuation of his submissions on the previous hearing date, submits that this Court must, in the circumstances of the case, in the least, permit the petitioner to occupy certain portions of the subject construction to operation and run [a] a restaurant under

¶26

¶27

the name and style, 'M/s Hotel Aishwarya Veg.' , [b] a party hall under the name and style, 'M/s Nakshatra Banquet & Party Hall' , [c] a coffee shop under the name and style 'M/s Café Rainbow Coffee Shop' and [d] a lodging under the name and style 'M/s Aakash Boarding & Lodging' .

¶28

Sri A. Ravishankar, the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that his tentative instructions are that certain notices have been issued, and on the request for commencement of the businesses as aforesaid, the learned counsel is empathetic in stating that if additional floors are built with an extra basement, the entire building will have to be brought down, and this Court may therefore not consider any request for interim order to run any of the aforesaid businesses.

¶29

These submissions are considered in the context of this Court's Order dated 15.04.2024 in W.P. No.36602/2019 and connected petition and what emerges as indisputable is that the proceedings have not been initiated for action against possible construction of additional area and this is despite definite directions by this Court. This Court's direction insofar as the petitioner's right to seek Trade License and commence business, reads as under:

¶30

"C. If despite this opportunity, the respondent - Municipal Council does not initiate action, the petitioner must be at liberty to file an application with the Municipal Council for leave to

¶31

¶32

occupy the property and for issuance of trade license and the Commissioner, Municipal Council is directed to positively consider the same subject to the availability of parking space."

¶33

This Court is of the opinion that at this stage, balance of convenience is also a factor which has to be considered apart from irreparable loss. The petitioner has completed the Building years back and the respondents are not taking action in accordance with law to verify whether the building must be brought down. Therefore, petitioner must be at liberty to commence, without claiming equity, such interior work as would be necessary for starting a restaurant, a party hall and coffee shop in the ground, first and third floors respectively, and whether the petitioner must occupy the other floors can be considered later.

¶34

If the petitioner is permitted to utilize these three floors for the aforesaid businesses, it will be permitted to occupy just 1/3rd of the constructed area, and hence the Health Officer with the respondent is directed to visit the afore property and the three floors as stated above and file a Report with this Court for consideration of the petitioner's request to establish these three businesses in the said floors.

¶35

The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the jurisdictional Health Officer, who shall, by the next date of hearing, file a report into this Court. The Health Officer shall only report

¶36

¶37

on the feasibility of housing these businesses in the aforesaid floors and the measures that the petitioner will have to be take in that regard.

¶38

The office is directed to re-list this petition on 09.01.2025."

¶39

Pursuant to the said order, the respondent has filed

¶40

an undated report on 05.08.2025, which discloses that the building is constructed in violation of the laws. Hence, question of directing the respondent to grant trade licence and issue Khatha in respect of the entire construction does not arise. As the construction put up by the petitioner is illegal on the face of it, this Court has passed the following order in W.P.No.33492/2024:

¶41

"ORDER

¶42

(i) Writ petition is disposed of.

¶43

(ii) Respondent is hereby directed to consider the request of the petitioner for sanction of E-khata as well as trade licence in respect of that portion of the writ petition schedule property wherein construction has been put-up by the petitioner in accordance with the sanction plan. The same shall be done within a period of two

¶44

¶45

months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶46

(iii) In respect of other portion which the petitioner is said have constructed in violation of the sanction plan, petitioner is given liberty to seek regularization of the same, in accordance with law, if it is permissible and respondent shall consider the request in accordance with law. If impermissible to regularize then, respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in the manner known to law."

¶47

4. The aforementioned order is sought to be questioned

¶48

in this review petition and the petitioner is insisting upon a direction to be issued to the authorities concerned to issue trade licence and also E-Khatha in respect of the entire illegal construction put up by the petitioner on the strength of the report of the respondent dated 05.08.2025.

¶49

The request of the petitioner is impermissible and in contravention of law. In fact, a duty is cast upon the respondent/authority to remove the illegal structure put up by the petitioner.

¶50

¶51