Karnataka High Court
Alwyn Edwin Soans vs The Commissioner on 12 February, 2026
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8727
WP No. 10213 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 10213 OF 2019 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. ALWYN EDWIN SOANS
S/O LATE E W SOANS
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
2. MRS LAVITA SALINA SONAS
W/O ALWYN EDWIN SOANS
R/A DOOR NO.3-9-679/1
NEAR PADAVA HIGH SCHOOL
BEJAI POST, MANGALORE-570004
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION ,
Digitally signed LALBAGH , MANGALORE - 570 004
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH 2. SMT SUPREETHA G SHETTY
COURT OF W/OO GANESH SHETTY
KARNATAKA SRI RAGHUNANDAN
NEAR PADUVA HIGH SCHOOL
NANTHOOR , MANGALORE 570004
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.V.NARASIMHAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI.PRABHAKAR L.SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2018 IN M.A.NO.10/2017 ON
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8727
WP No. 10213 of 2019
HC-KAR
THE FILE OF 6TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE,
D.K. MANGALURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;
i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the order dated 21-12-2018 in M.A. No. 10/2017 on the file of 6th Additional District and Session Judge, D.K. Mangaluru produced at Annexure A. ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the order dated 28-01-2017 in No. E- 4/BA 67/2013-14 passed by the Commissioner, Mangaluru Municipal Corporation produced at Annexure B. iii. Issue any other directions to meet the ends of justice.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the owners of the immoveable property bearing RS No.49-3A1AP measuring 42 feet east to west and 42 feet north to south situated at Padu Village within the limits of the Mangalore City Corporation. The petitioner had applied for a plan sanction to construct -3- NC: 2026:KHC:8727 WP No. 10213 of 2019 HC-KAR a residential house, which was so sanctioned on 01.10.2013. In furtherance of which the construction was carried out by the petitioner.
3. Respondent No.2 submitted a complaint that the construction which has been made by the petitioner is in violation of the plan sanction and as such proceedings were taken up. The initial survey having been made, it was found that there is a violation in respect to the setback area in terms of Annexure-D. However, when the proceedings were pending before respondent No.1, one other survey was directed to be carried out by the surveyor of respondent No.1. The said survey report is stated to have been submitted on 09.09.2015 stating that there is no violation of the setback area. However, there is an encroachment made by respondent No.2 into the property of the petitioner.
4. Despite the said survey report being furnished respondent No.1 took cognizance of the earlier -4- NC: 2026:KHC:8727 WP No. 10213 of 2019 HC-KAR survey report and held that the petitioner has violated the plan sanction and directed action in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 308 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. It is Challenging the same, the petitioner had filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.10 of 2017, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2018. It is challenging these two orders, that the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
5. Sri.Balakrishna Sastry., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that;
5.1. Neither respondent No.1 nor the appellate authority of the District Court has taken into consideration Annexure-E, the survey report which had been submitted while the proceedings were pending before respondent No.1 which categorically indicated that there is no Violation of the sanction plan made by the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:8727 WP No. 10213 of 2019 HC-KAR petitioner and that the construction is within the setback area.
5.2. He therefore submitted that there is no application of mind by either respondent No.1 or the District Court and as such, he submits that the petition is required to be allowed.
6. Sri.Prabhakar L.Shetty., learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that though the second survey report has been submitted, the observation made therein that respondent No.2 has encroached upon the property of the petitioners is not proper and that needs to be eschewed and no action is to be taken against respondent No.2.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that no action is proposed to be taken by the petitioner against respondent No.2 as regards any such encroachment and that the petitioner will not be taken.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:8727 WP No. 10213 of 2019 HC-KAR
8. Considering that a second survey report has been submitted at Annexure-E and respondent No.2 who was the complainant has no objection for the said survey report to be considered and respondent No.2 has no further objection as regards any violation alleged to have been made by the petitioner as regard the plan sanction and/or the building bylaws as regard the construction which has been put up by the petitioner.
9. Though there is non application of mind on the part of respondent No.1 and the District Court and I am of the considered opinion that there would be no purpose served by remanding the matter which would only result in an empty formality with the complainant not wishing to prosecute the matter and having confirmed the second survey which has been carried out.
10. Though Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the matter may be remanded as observed -7- NC: 2026:KHC:8727 WP No. 10213 of 2019 HC-KAR supra, in my considered opinion the same would be an empty formality in view of the second survey report at Annexure-E. As such, I pass the following;
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. A certiorari is issued, the order dated
28.01.2017 in No.E-4/BA 67/2013-14 passed by the Commissioner, Mangaluru Municipal Corporation at Annexure-B and consequently the order dated 21.12.2018 in M.A.No.10/2017 on the file of 6th Additional District and Session Judge, D.K. Mangaluru at Annexure-A are quashed.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21