Dismissed¶48

Kundapura Town Planning Authority v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2026WA/1448/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ appeal by memo; appeal dismissed as withdrawn; contentions kept open; relinquishment deed dated 11.11.2025 by subsequent purchaser rendered appeal infructuous; road margin relinquishment; condition No.17 of plan sanction; W.P No.25205/2023 (LB) order dated 02.08.2024 by learned Single Judge; Section 4, Karnataka High Court Act; Kundapura Town Planning Authority; Udupi; LB-RES; HCGP Kiran Kumar for State respondents; R4 and R5 served.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the writ appeal granted on the appellant's memo; appeal dismissed as withdrawn; contentions raised in the appeal kept open. ¶48

Kundapura Town Planning Authority Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:11153-DB WA No. 1448 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 1448 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

KUNDAPURA TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY 1^ST FLOOR, TOWN MUNICIPAL BUILDING KUNDAPURA, UDUPI-576201 BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY NAVEENA G.S. S/O SIDDESHAPPA B.G. AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. PRASAD HEGDE K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by RAKSHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SECRETARIAT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT SOUDHA BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶16

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT, RAJATHAADRI MANIPAL, UDUPI-576 104

¶17

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING A BLOCK, 2^ND FLOOR, RAJATHAADRI

¶18

DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE COMPLEX

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:11153-DB WA No. 1448 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

MANIPAL, UDUPI-576 104

¶23

SRI. AJITH KUMAR SHETTY

¶24

S/O LATE K. RAJEEV SHETTY

¶25

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶26

R/AT. NAGARAJA MANDIRA HALGARAJA POST AND VILLAGE

¶27

KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI-576 211

¶28

SRI. KAMARAJ SHETTY

¶29

S/O SRI. AJITHKUMAR SHETTY

¶30

AGEDA BOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NAGARAJAMANDIRA HALGARAJA POST AND VILLAGE

¶31

KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI-576 211

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;

¶34

R4 & R5 ARE SERVED)

¶35

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WP No.25205/2023 (LB) DATED 02.08.2024 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶36

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:11153-DB WA No. 1448 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) Sri. Prasad Hegde K., learned counsel appearing for

¶43

the appellant seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal and has filed a memo to that effect. The memo reads as under;

¶44

"In the above writ appeal the appellant has challenged the order made in W.P No.25205/2023. As per the order made in the said writ petition the respondent No.4 and 5 herein need not to relinquish their right of road margin in favor of the authority as per condition No.17 of plan sanction. However, after filing the writ appeal relinquish deed is made in favour of the Municipal authority on 11.11.2025 by the subsequent purchaser. Hence the above writ appeal becomes infructuous. Hence direction issued in the writ petition may be set-aside. Therefore, the above writ appeal may be disposed as having become infructuous in the interest of justice."

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:11153-DB WA No. 1448 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

2. In view of the memo filed, the appeal is

¶49

dismissed as withdrawn. The contentions raised in the

¶50

appeal are kept open.

¶51