Sri Manjunath R Vs the Deputy Commissioner

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO R3 TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE R4 FOR HIS ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A, B AND C DATED 17/07/2023, 20/09/2023 AND 21/09/2023 RESPECTIVELY.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶29

3 -

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:37177 WP No. 21801 of 2023

¶32

CNR: KAHC010510292023

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

None appears for petitioner.

¶35

2. This petition is filed for a writ of mandamus directing respondents no.1 to 3 to take action against respondent no.4 for illegal construction of petition schedule property by considering petitioner's representations dated 17.07.2023, 20.09.2023, 21.09.2023 at Annexures - A, B and C respectively in site no.106, 106/1 and 200, presently within BBMP Khatha no.2397/106, 106/1 and 200, measuring EastWest 61 feet and North-South 27 feet, totally 1,701 square feet, situated at Kudlu Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District ( schedule property ). By order dated 27.09.2023, this Court had directed inspection of construction and filing of report by respondents no.1 to 3. In pursuance of same, report was filed on 04.11.2023 indicating construction put up by respondent no.4 was illegal.

¶36

3. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 has today filed a memo stating that construction was put up in schedule property prior to 13.07.2026 and in meanwhile had respondent had obtained building license and sanctioned plan approved

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:37177 WP No. 21801 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

CNR: KAHC010510292023

¶40

from competent authority on 01.07.2026 and demolished earlier construction. Copies of building plan and permission as well as GPS-tagged photographs of scheduled property are produced. Same would indicate demolition of alleged illegal structure.

¶41

4. In view of above, relief sought for in this petition is rendered infructuous. Taking note of same, petition is disposed of as such. However, same would not bar respondent authority from taking action against petitioner for earlier violation in accordance with law.

¶42

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶43

YKL List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2

Sri Manjunath R v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunath R v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Devarajaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Supreeth S Vs State of Karnataka

Adrian Joseph D'Souza Vs the State

Sri Sunil Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Jadeesha Vs the State by

Sri Beguraiah @ Ramesha Vs State of Karnataka