Karnataka High Court
Gerald Sequeira vs Mangalore City Corporation on 16 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20845
WP No. 54264 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.54264 OF 2017 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. GERALD SEQUEIRA
S/O P.J. SEQUEIRA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT ST. REETAS ELECTRIC WORKS
MARKET ROAD, MANGALORE-575 001
D.K. DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION
LALBAGH, MANGALORE-575 003
Digitally REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
signed by
CHAITHRA A ...RESPONDENT
Location:
HIGH (BY SRI SATHY D., ADVOCATE FOR
COURT OF SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCARTE)
KARNATAKA
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.08.2017 IN MA
NO.66/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 6TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A
AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW MA NO.66/2012 FILED BY
PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20845
WP No. 54264 of 2017
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is the owner of a commercial building bearing Municipal No. 13-3-295 situated at Market Road, Mangalore. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the legality and correctness of the demolition order passed by the respondent-Mangalore City Corporation in exercise of powers conferred under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and also the order passed by the appellate authority in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 66/2012, whereby the demolition order was confirmed.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner claims to be the lawful owner of the subject property, which is being used for commercial purposes. It appears that the respondent-Corporation, on noticing unauthorized construction activity on the first floor of the petition premises, issued a provisional notice under Section 321(1) of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as -3- NC: 2025:KHC:20845 WP No. 54264 of 2017 HC-KAR to why the construction carried out without a valid building licence and without securing an approved plan should not be demolished.
3. In response to the provisional notice, the petitioner filed objections denying any new construction on the first floor and instead contended that what has been undertaken is only repair work to the roof of the building, which, according to him, is over 80 years old. However, the respondent-Corporation, not being satisfied with the explanation furnished, proceeded to pass a final order dated 19.10.2011 under Section 321(3) of the Act confirming the demolition of the unauthorized construction. This order was subjected to appeal before the competent appellate authority, which, after considering the rival contentions, dismissed the appeal and upheld the demolition order. These concurrent orders are now challenged in the present writ petition.
4. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation and has perused the material on record. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:20845 WP No. 54264 of 2017 HC-KAR
5. The principal contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the construction on the first floor is non-existent and that only repair works to the roof of the existing structure were undertaken due to the dilapidated condition of the building. However, on a close reading of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the notice under Section 321(1) of the Act, it is clear that the petitioner has unequivocally denied undertaking of any new construction and instead taken a specific stand that only repairs were carried out. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that despite having the opportunity to place on record the present condition of the building through photographs or other material evidence, the petitioner failed to do so. Counsel for the petitioner has expressed his inability to secure instructions or photographs from the petitioner owing to the old nature of the case.
6. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, those decisions pertain to cases where construction was undertaken with minor deviations from the approved plan or involved compoundable violations. In such -5- NC: 2025:KHC:20845 WP No. 54264 of 2017 HC-KAR cases, the Courts have directed the authorities to take a lenient view keeping in mind the substantial investment made and the potential waste of resources. However, the facts in the present case are entirely distinguishable.
7. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner did not apply for a building licence or submit a building plan for approval before commencing construction on the first floor. The material on record clearly indicates that the construction was commenced and completed in total disregard to the statutory requirements and in blatant violation of the building by-laws. Despite issuance of a provisional notice and sufficient opportunity afforded to the petitioner to respond and comply with the law, the petitioner proceeded with the construction work.
8. The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 does not confer any authority upon the Corporation to regularize constructions which have been undertaken without any licence or sanctioned building plan. The scheme of the Act is clear and categorical. Any person intending to erect or construct a building must obtain prior permission from the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:20845 WP No. 54264 of 2017 HC-KAR competent authority and the construction must strictly conform to the sanctioned plan and building by-laws. The object of such a regulatory framework is to ensure planned development and public safety, and to prevent haphazard and illegal constructions. Any construction carried out in absolute violation of these mandatory provisions cannot be the subject matter of regularisation. The statute does not contemplate or permit regularisation of wholly unauthorized constructions, and such an act, if permitted, would defeat the very object and purpose of the Act.
9. The contention of the petitioner that only repairs were carried out is not borne out from the records and is clearly an afterthought. The authorities have recorded factual findings based on inspection and assessment that a new first floor construction has been undertaken without the requisite approvals. Such findings have been concurrently recorded both by the Corporation and the appellate authority. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot lightly interfere with such concurrent factual findings, particularly when there is no material placed on record to dislodge them. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:20845 WP No. 54264 of 2017 HC-KAR
10. Though this Court is not oblivious to the hardships that may be caused to a property owner when demolition is ordered, such sympathy cannot be a ground to condone or legitimize illegal constructions that have been erected in brazen violation of the law. The petitioner, being a property owner, is presumed to be aware of the statutory requirements and is under a legal obligation to comply with the same. Failure to do so cannot result in an advantage to the violator.
11. In view of the above discussion, and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has constructed the first floor without securing the mandatory building licence and approval of building plan, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the demolition order passed by the respondent-Corporation, as well as the order passed by the appellate authority.
12. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41