Karnataka High Court
N K Swastik Residency vs The Commissioner And Ors on 20 February, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB
WA No. 200250 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200250 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200251 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
IN WA No. 200250/2024
BETWEEN:
THE BUILDER,
N.K. SWASTIC RESIDENCY
(N.K. INFRATECH BUILDERS)
SHOP NO.11, 1ST FLOOR, JAJEE ARCHADE,
S.B. COLLEGE ROAD, KALABURAGI.
Digitally signed by NOW AT SHOP NO.2 AND 3,
SACHIN DEVI APARTMENTS, KOTNOOR-D,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KALABURGI - 585 102.
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI SWARAJ
S/O ARUNKUMAR NAGARI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.11-1812 VIDYANAGAR COLONY,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAVI B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB
WA No. 200250 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SHARAN DESAI, M,ARCH USA,
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION IN ARCHITECTURE
S/O LATE SHRI HANAMANT RAO DESAI,
EX-MLA AFZALPUR,
KALABURAGI, PLOT NO.10 H.NO.26,
N.V. LAYOUT VITTAL NAGAR,
KHUBA PLOT KALABURAGI.
NOW RESIDENT OF M-BLOCK,
APT NO.106 FIRST FLOOR,
RENAISSANCE EXOTICA,
JAKKUR PLANTATION ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI MAHANAGAR PALIKE (KMP),
NEAR JAGAT CIRCLE,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
ROOM NO. 8, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
4. MR. ARVIND GHANTOJI,
N.K SWASTIK RESIDENCY PLOT NO. 9,
CORPORATION NO.10-3-77 AND 10-3-77/A,
SY. NO.7/1 OF DADDAPUR,
N.V. LAYOUT, VITTAL NAGAR,
CTS NO.2696 KALABURAGI - 580 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARAN DESAI M.ARCH, USA
S/O LATE SRI HANAMAT RAO DESAI (PARTY-IN-PERSON)
R1 (THROUGH VC);
SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R2 (THROUGH VC);
NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB
WA No. 200250 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORDER IMPUGNED DATED 20.09.2024 PASSED IN WRIT
PETITION NO. 201337/2024 AND CONSEQUENTIALLY TO
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN ENTIRELY, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
IN WA NO. 200251/2024
BETWEEN:
THE OWNER (MR.ARAVIND GHANTOJI),
REPRESENTED BY THE OWNER
N.K. SWASTIK RESIDENCY
PLOT NO.9, CORPORATION NO.10-3-77,
AND 10-3-77A, SY NO.7/1 OF DADDAPUR,
N.V.LAYOUT, VITTAL NAGAR,
CTS NO. 2696, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.SUBRAMHNYA JOIS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NANDKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI MAHANAGAR PALIKE
NEAR JAGAT CIRCLE, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
ROOM NO. 8, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
3. SHARAN DESAI M.ARCH USA,
AREAS OF SPECIALIZED IN ARCHITECTURE
AGE : 58 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI. HANAMANTRAO DESAI,
EX-MLA, AFZALPUR TALUK,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB
WA No. 200250 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024
HC-KAR
VITTAL NAGAR, KHUBA PLOT,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
EMAIL ID [email protected].
4. THE BUILDER,
(MR. SWARAJ NAGRI, B.E. CIVIL)
REPRESENTED BY THE BUILDER,
N.K. SWASTIK RESIDENCY SHOP NO.11,
1ST FLOOR, JAJEE ARCADE,
S.B.COLLEGE ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1
(THROUGH VC);
SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R2;
SRI SHARAN DESAI M. ARCH, USA
S/O LATE SRI HANAMT RAO DESAI,
(PARTY-IN-PERSON) R3 (THROUGH VC);
SRI RAVI B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2024 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.201337/2024 (LB-
RES), AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.4 AND ETC.
THESE WRIT APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB
WA No. 200250 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) These appeals are filed challenging the correctness of an order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.201337/2024.
2. Respondent No.3 had filed W.P.No.200382/2022 for a direction to prevent illegal construction by the appellants and to conduct an inspection of the property and submit a report to the Court. During the course of the said writ petition, several interim orders were passed. Thereafter, the writ petition was finally disposed of in view of the fact that the Municipal Corporation had issued a notice under Section 321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, "the KMC Act"), and a reply was submitted by the owner of the property who had put up the construction. Later, respondent No.3 filed W.P.No.201337/2024 for a direction to take action under Section 321 of the KMC Act and to demolish the building.
-6-NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. The writ petition was opposed by the builder who filed a statement of objections, inter alia contending that in W.P.No.200382/2022 a fresh survey was ordered to be conducted using a tape. Accordingly, the officials of the Corporation once again visited the property for assessing the violation and submitted a report dated 06.09.2024 indicating the violation to the extent of 195.17 sq. meters which is much lesser than the earlier inspection report submitted on 30.06.2023.
4. It was also contended that the deviation reflected in the report submitted is contrary to the actual extent of deviation and the permissible FAR in respect of the property as the maximum plot coverage area is 65% and the developer is entitled to FAR of 1.62. It was contended that in view of the topography of the area where the land is sloppy, the parking area below ground level is not recommended since there can be water logging during the rainy season as the road is at a higher level and there would be difficulty for flow of sewage water, as there -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR is no pakka road and ground level cannot be determined.
Several other contentions were raised regarding the locus standi of respondent No.3 to file the writ petition.
5. The writ petition was taken up for consideration and the learned Single Judge, in terms of the order dated 20.09.2024 noticed the contentions of the Municipal Corporation which are as follows:
10. "From the report, it also came out that the permitted height of the building was only 11.5 meters, but the construction put up was 15.30 meters, thus impinging upon the setbacks, thus having effect on the setbacks of the building. In that background, counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 were directed to get instruction as to whether his client would be willing to remove the violations voluntarily or the corporation would have to be directed to take action. The corporation not having taken action on several occasions when the matter was taken up.
11. On 18.09.2024, the counsel for the private respondents submitted that he would file -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR objections to the survey report and that there is no violation. As such, the petitioner made a categorical submission. A further submission was made by the counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4, that they were trying to resolve the dispute with the petitioner. When the petitioner made a categorical submission that the respondents had unauthorizedly barged into the house of the petitioner, tried to prevail upon the mother of the petitioner to execute an affidavit and NOC under threat and it is in that background that the Station House Officer was directed to consider the complaint of the petitioner and register necessary FIR in person thereof.
Today, learned HCGP submitted that Crime No.120/2024 has been registered by the Brahmapur Police Station which is under investigation.
12. Today statement of objections have been filed to the petition as also to the survey report. The submission of Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 are; firstly the petitioner kept quiet during the entire period of construction put up by respondent Nos.3 and 4; secondly, that the -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR petition is more in the nature of a public interest litigation and there is no private lis which has been involved, there is a discrepancy in the survey reports which had been filed earlier and now; thirdly, that the enquiry has not been conducted and completed by the corporation; fourthly, that until such enquiry is completed, no action should be taken against the respondents; fifthly, the petitioner is unnecessarily harassing respondent Nos.3 and 4, the construction is proper and correct.
13. The basement which has been sanctioned could not be constructed due to the slope of the road and as such has been brought up and instead of a cellar a stilt parking has been constructed adding an additional floor, thereby increasing the height. If the stilt parking is not considered, then the height of the building will be within 11.5 meters and thereby the setbacks would be as per the plan sanction. A draft notification has been issued for amendment of the existing zonal regulation permitting the increase of the height of the building from 11.5 meters to 15 meters and if the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR said draft notification were to be approved, the construction of the building beyond 11.5 meters would not be in violation of the building Bylaws. A E-khata having been issued as regards the said construction, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have sold the property to various third party purchasers, they not being arrayed as parties, the above writ petition is not maintainable on that basis. In view of the above submissions, it is submitted that the writ petition is required to be dismissed.
14. Sri D.P.Ambekar, learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the Corporation has not issued the occupancy certificate and without such occupancy certificate being issued, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have sold the property and permitted the purchasers to occupy the premises. There is no requirement for the Corporation to measure the property before an application is filed for issuance of occupancy certificate and it was only thereafter that the role of the corporation would come about to ascertain if the construction is in violation of the plan sanctioned or not, no application for occupancy certificate having
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR been filed measurement was not done. Further, the learned counsel submits that, the Khata has been issued in terms of the approved plan and would not be valid if there is violation of the plan sanction and the corporation will take action in accordance with law at the earliest. Further, no action could be taken since the petitioner did not participate in the Enquiry and the submission made by the petitioner that he was not interested in filing any other document was only during the pendency of the present writ petition."
6. The learned Single Judge thereafter proceeded to pass an order which reads as follows:
16. "The present case is a classic case of how all the building bylaws and the applicable rules could be violated. A perusal of the entire documents would indicate that each and every law applicable for the construction has been violated by respondent Nos.3 and 4. Firstly, the construction has not been put up in accordance with the plan. The respondents unilaterally on their own, coming to a
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR conclusion that basement could not be constructed, have not constructed the same and put up a stilt parking and three floors above the said stilt parking there being four floors (ground + 3 floors). There is a complete violation of the setbacks as also the height of the building. A perusal of the photographs produced along with the petition as also along with the statement of objections would indicate that there is no basement which has been constructed and a stilt parking has been constructed.
17. The violations in so far as the additional constructions have been clearly established by the report filed by the corporation. The plan sanction was only for ground, first and second floors, whereas the construction has been put up of stilt and four upper floors. Even if the first of them is taken to be ground floor, there are three additional floors put up thereafter, i.e. four floors plus stilt parking. Thus the height of the building has gone up to 15.30 meters when the sanction was only for 11.5 meters. Any increase in the height of the building would necessarily have an adverse impact on the setback of the said building. The contention
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR of learned counsel Sri Ravi Patel is that as on the date of plan sanction, the zonal regulation provided for 5 meters as setback on all sides, for a building above 11.5 meters to 15 meters and 6 meters of set back above 15 meters up to 18 meters, would not be applicable as per the proposed amendment to the zonal regulations. Since there is a proposal now to enhance the height of the building that until 15 meters, regular setbacks would be available and above 15 meters up to 18 meters, 6 meters is proposed even if this is taken into consideration, the building of the petitioner being 15.30 meters in height, even as per the proposed zonal regulation, the setback would have to be 6 meters on each side, the site measuring 40 X 70ft, the setback would be 6 meters on each side. The setback on each side would roughly be 20 feet, thereby meaning that the entire frontage cannot be used as per even the proposed zonal regulations. His alternate submission is that up to 15 meters height, the earlier setback of 1 meter would apply and that the portion above 15 meters would be demolished by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 above 15 meters.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR
18. The first contention in this regard by Sri. Ravi Patil, cannot be accepted since there is admittedly a violation, since there is a categorical violation insofar as the height of the building is concerned and the setbacks in relation thereto have not been maintained. Admittedly, as on the date of plan sanction and as on today, the requirement of setbacks is 5 meters for a building above 11.5 meters up to 15 meters, mandating respondent Nos.3 and 4 to maintain a setback of 5 meters on all sides. Admittedly, the said set setback has not been maintained by respondent Nos.3 and 4, and also cannot be maintained for a simple reason that the frontage being 40 feet. If 10 meter setback is maintained, then 32 feet would go towards setback on the frontage and 32 feet would go for setback on the front and back, leaving a site measuring only 38 X 8 feet for construction. Thus a violation of this aspect also, as could be clearly seen, the excess construction has also been pointed out earlier, inasmuch as the permitted construction being 422.47 square meters, construction put up is 657.64 square meters.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR
19. Insofar as the sale and occupancy of the property is concerned, there being no occupancy certificate which has been issued by the corporation, the building requiring an occupancy certificate before being occupied, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not only sold the construction put up to third parties, but have also handed over possession of the said construction to third parties and permitted them to occupy. In this regard, the submission of State Sri.D.P.Ambekar learned counsel for the corporation is that, until a person approaches the Corporation for issuance of occupancy certificate, there would be no duty imposed on the corporation to measure the construction, and that the khata which has been issued is only as per the plan sanction, cannot be accepted. The construction having occurred within the jurisdiction of the corporation, it was for the corporation to take necessary action so as to prevent innocent third parties from purchasing the said flats by investing their hard earned money, having been defrauded by persons like respondent Nos.3 and 4 into making payments of those monies to them, the respondent-corporation ought also not to have issued a Khata, as
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR per the plan sanctioned even before the occupancy certificate was issued, without measuring the property and thereby permitting the registration of the sale. The manner in which the corporation has acted in the present matter from the inception till now, without taking any action, as observed earlier in the earlier round of litigation, reeks of malafides and complicity among the Officers of the corporation with respondent Nos.3 and 4, which has resulted in the present situation which would have an adverse impact on the purchasers of the flats in the said apartment.
20. It is for the corporation to maintain orderly development within its jurisdiction, and to see to it that the construction which is put up is in accordance with the plan sanction issued, and also vested with a duty and obligation to see to it that unauthorized construction are not occupied in an illegal manner, which apparently the corporation has failed to do so.
21. This Court would not have normally adverted to all these facts and the documents if not for the apparent collusion between the Officers of the Corporation and
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR the respondent Nos.3 and 4, which is clearly apparent from the face of the records and the Corporation despite having been directed on several earlier occasions by this Court, has not taken any action giving one or the other excuse, lastly, blaming the petitioner for not having participated in this Enquiry. When the enquiry did not contemplate the petitioners participation, it was the Commissioner of the Corporation to enquire into the complicity of his Officers and the collusion between his Officers and respondent Nos.3 and 4. This conduct on part of the officials of the Corporation is required to be deprecated, and is so deprecated. The collusion between the Officers of the Corporation and respondent Nos.3 and 4 gives no confidence to this Court that the Corporation would take any action on its own. There being violation which has been established, survey reports which have been filed, the photographs evidencing the violation, there being admission on part of respondent Nos.3 and 4 that the additional floor has been put up, albeit on the ground that basement could not be constructed and stilt floor was put up, would clearly indicate that the
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR Corporation was required to take action, which it has not.
22. In the peculiar facts of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that unless this Court were to take steps to come to the rescue of the petitioner, the petitioner's rights would continue to be adversely affected.
23. As regards the submissions as regards the locus of the petitioner, firstly, the property stands in the name of the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner could not have filed the above petition, is required to be out rightly rejected, since admittedly the petitioner is also residing in the neighboring house and being a son, he would also be entitled to file the above petition. The second contention that the petition is in nature of a public interest litigation, is also required to be rejected, for a simple reason that the petitioner, being the neighbor of the respondents, the construction which has been put up by respondent Nos.3 and 4 directly and substantially affects the rights and interest of the petitioner. There being a private lis, it cannot be said to be public interest litigation."
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR
7. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the owner and builder of the property to get the property vacated from any occupancy within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the Municipal Corporation was directed to get the property vacated. The Municipal Corporation was further directed to personally supervise and ascertain the excess construction put up vis-a-vis the sanction plan, both in terms of setbacks and height within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and cause demolition of such excess construction. The cost of demolition was to be recovered from the owner and developer of the property.
8. Contemporaneously, the Director of Municipal Administration was directed to conduct an inquiry into the complicity and collusion of the Officers of the Corporation with the owner and developer of the property and to file a report within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR
9. Being aggrieved by the said order, the developer/builder is before this Court in Writ Appeal No.200250/2024 while the owner of the property has also filed Writ Appeal No.200251/2024.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.200251/2024 contends that the appellant, being the owner of the property was not a party in W.P.No.200382/2022 and that the impugned order has come as a rude shock. He contends that the writ petition filed by respondent No.3 was for a different relief while the learned Single Judge has granted relief which has serious consequences. He further contends that the learned Single Judge has also not considered that the Municipal Corporation had not complied with the procedure as prescribed under Section 321 of the KMC Act, 1976 and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is a judicial overreach and hence warrants interference.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR
11. The learned counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.200250/2024 reiterated the above submissions.
12. Respondent No.3 who has appeared through video conference submits that the reports of inspection conducted by the authorities during the pendency of W.P.No.201337/2024, pursuant to the directions issued by the Court, shows that there is clear violation of the building plan and setback area. He contends that the height of the building is 15.30 meters as against the permissible height of 11.5 meters. He contends that the owner and developer have constructed the building in absolute violation of the sanctioned plan and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in passing an order to demolish the illegal construction which violated the sanction plan.
13. The learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation submitted that no action was taken after the owner and developer submitted their reply to the notice
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR issued under Section 321(1) of the KMC Act, 1976. He contends that since there was an interim stay granted in W.P.No.201337/2024, the Municipal Corporation has not taken any action. Nonetheless, he submits that pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Commissioner has taken action against the concerned officers.
14. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.200250/2024 and the learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.200251/2024, as well as respondent No.3 who has joined the proceedings through video conference and the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation.
15. Respondent No.3 is purportedly the owner of a property abutting the property of the appellant in W.A.No.200251/2024. It appears that the appellant in W.A.No.200251/2024 was permitted to put up
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR construction in his property. Respondent No.3 had approached this Court in W.P.No.200382/2022 alleging violation of the sanctioned plan. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Municipal Corporation issued a notice under Section 321(1) of the KMC Act, 1976 to which, a reply was submitted by the owner and developer of the property.
16. Respondent No.3, not satisfied with the steps taken by the Municipal Corporation, filed a fresh writ petition in W.P.No.201337/2024 for a direction to take action under Section 321 of the KMC Act to demolish the building. During the pendency of the said writ petition, an inspection of the building in question was conducted and certain reports were submitted before the Court.
17. Ideally, the learned Single Judge must have directed the Municipal Corporation to take further steps as provided under Sections 321(2) and 321(3) of the KMC Act, 1976. However, the learned Single Judge took
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR cognizance of the inspection report submitted by the authorities of the Municipal Corporation and held that there was violation of the sanctioned plan and directed removal of the excess unauthorized construction. The consequence of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is that the owner and developer have been deprived of the opportunity to represent that the construction put up by them is in accordance with the sanctioned plan and to justify the same before the appropriate authority. It is relevant to note that unless an order is passed under the KMC Act, 1976 for demolition, the authorities of the Corporation have no power to bring down a construction.
18. If a statute prescribes an act to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone or not at all. In the case on hand, Section 321 of the KMC Act, 1976 prescribes a procedure to be followed before bringing down any illegal construction if it is not in line with the sanctioned plan. An appeal is also provided
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR against any order that may be passed under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act, 1976 before the District Judge.
19. It may be that respondent No.3 is affected by the construction put up by the owner and developer of the property adjacent to his property. However, the same does not warrant drastic orders to be passed to demolish the construction in violation of the procedure prescribed under the KMC Act, 1976.
20. In that view of the matter, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and direct the Municipal Corporation to initiate necessary steps as provided under Sections 321(2) and 321(3) of the KMC Act, 1976 within a period of two months from today and pass appropriate orders if the construction is not in accordance with law and thereafter take steps to bring down the unauthorized construction within a period of two months thereafter. The Municipal Corporation shall bear in mind the observations of the
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1685-DB WA No. 200250 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200251 of 2024 HC-KAR learned Single Judge regarding the violation committed by the appellants in constructing the building.
21. It is open for the appellants to test the order that may be passed under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act, 1976 before the concerned District Court as provided under Section 443-A of the KMC Act, 1976.
22. The Writ appeals stand disposed of on the above terms.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19