Nirupama Upadaya Vs Udupi City Municipality — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Nirupama Upadaya Vs Udupi City Municipality — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge the inspection reports before the Civil Court; respondent No.1 granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law against the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's writ petition seeking to stop the demolition of her building pursuant to the demolition order dated 27.05.2022, said to arise from construction in violation of building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan, should be granted despite the disputed inspection findings.

Court's answer

This Court, exercising its power under Article 226, cannot examine disputed questions of fact and must proceed on the submissions of respondent No.1 regarding the construction put up by the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is dismissed, reserving to the petitioner the liberty to approach the Civil Court and challenge the inspection reports.

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to respondent No.1 to proceed in accordance with law against the petitioner.ratio¶47-48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ jurisdiction – Disputed questions of fact – Demolition under Karnataka Municipalities Act. Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 by Nirupama Upadaya seeking to stop demolition of her building pursuant to demolition order notice No.UNASA:A3/BA.07/2010-11 dated 27.05.2022 issued by Udupi City Municipality under Section 187(9)(G) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (Annexure-J), on the ground of construction in violation of building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan. On an interim Court order dated 21.12.2023, respondent No.1 inspected the property (Sy.No.135/9, 76 Bedagubettu Village, Udupi Taluku) and filed inspection reports (memos dated 06.02.2024 and 12.07.2024) recording certain deviations, which the petitioner disputed. Holding that a writ court exercising power under Article 226 cannot examine disputed questions of fact, the Court proceeded on respondent No.1's submissions, dismissed the writ petition, reserved to the petitioner liberty to approach the Civil Court and challenge the inspection reports, and granted respondent No.1 liberty to proceed in accordance with law. (Decided 10.04.2026; coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.I. Arun.)

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:20106 WP No. 12494 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.12494 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

NIRUPAMA UPADAYA, D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTY AITHAL, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT 76 BADAGUBETTU, BAILURU, UDUPI - 576 101.

…PETITIONER

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

AND:

UDUPI CITY MUNICIPALITY UDUPI - 576 101 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

G. SHREEPATI RAO, AGED 45 YEARS S/O LATE G KESHAVA RAO R/AT DOOR NO. 2/1/89, GUNDIBAIL, KUNJIBETTU POST, UDUPI - 576 102. UDUPI DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ABDULLA T. I., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.K. ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:20106 WP No. 12494 of 2022

HC-KAR

DIRECT THE R-1 TO STOP THE PROCESS OF DEMOLITION OF THE PETITIONERS BUILDING AS PER THE DEMOLITION ORDER NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ORDER BEARING NO.UNASA:A3/BA.07/2010-11 DATED 27.05.2022 UNDER SECTION 187(9)(G) OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT 1964 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

On the ground that the petitioner has put up construction in violation of building bye-laws and sanctioned plan impugned order has been passed against the petitioner by the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

WHEREFORE, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to;

i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to stop the process of demolition of the Petitioner's building as per the demolition order notice issued to the Petitioner vide order bearing No. G£À¸À :A3.BA.07/2010-11 dated 27.05.2022 under Section 187(9)(G) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 produced at Annexure-'J';

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:20106 WP No. 12494 of 2022

HC-KAR

ii. Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper at the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

On 21.12.2023, this Court has passed the

following order:

1. The respondent No.1 is directed to cause a inspection of the property of the petitioner bearing Sy.No.135/9 of 76 Bedagubettu Village, Udupi Taluku to ascertain if the construction put up by the petitioner is in accordance with the plan sanction, if not, what are the violations in terms of setback, FAR, ground coverage and height of the building.

2. The inspection to be carried out commencing from 10.30 a.m. on 16.1.2024, the report to be filed on 7.2.2024.

3. Re-list on 20.2.2024.

4. Respondent No.1 is restrained from taking any corrosive steps against the petitioner till the next date of hearing.

Pursuant to the said order, first respondent has

inspected the property of the petitioner and has filed an inspection report along with a memo dated 06.02.2024 and again another memo dated 12.07.2024. In the said inspection reports respondent No.1 mentions certain deviations in the construction put up by the petitioner.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20106 WP No. 12494 of 2022

HC-KAR

The petitioner disputes the finding of the

inspection reports.

This Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot examine disputed question of facts. Under the circumstances, this Court will have to proceed on the submission made by respondent No.1 regarding the construction put up by the petitioner.

For the aforementioned reasons, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and challenge the inspection reports, if he is so advised, the writ petition stands dismissed .

Liberty is granted to respondent No.1 to proceed in

accordance with law against the petitioner.

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35