SMT SHASHIKALA V vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56281
WP No. 29525 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010645632026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 29525 OF 2026 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT SHASHIKALA V
D/O SRI. D. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/A S. MADIWALA VILLAGE,
SAMANDURU POST,
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-562106.
2. DR. M. NARAYANA,
S/O LATE. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
GERITANABELE VILLAGE,
SAMANDURU POST,
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-562106
…PETITIONERS
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. S VENKATESH SHASTRY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56281
WP No. 29525 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010645632026
M. S BUILDINGS,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
SAMANDURU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT,
KASABA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-562106.
3. THE MEMBER SECRETARY AND
JOINT DIRECTOR OF
TOWN PLANNING,
ANEKAL PLANNING AUTHORITY,
ANNA NO. 430, HENNAGARA GATE,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560099.
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ANEKAL TALUK PANCHAYAT,
NEAR COURT COMPLEX,
ANEKAL-ATTIBELE ROAD,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-562106.
5. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
K.G ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.
6. THE TAHASILDAR,
ANEKAL TALUK AND TOWN,
BENGLAURU-562106.
7. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
P.W.D SUB DIVISION,
ANEKAL TOWN,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56281
WP No. 29525 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010645632026
BENGALURU-562106.
8. THIRUMALA CHARITABLE TRUST,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
THE REGISTERED TRUST,
NO. 9, SAPTHAGIRI MANSION,
BOMMANAHALLI, BHANU NURSING
HOME ROAD,
BENGALURU-560068.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING TRUSTEE,
MR. SHINE K. ANTONY.
9. MR. SHINE K ANTONY
S/O MR. K.C ANTONY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OLD CHANDAPURA,
R/A NO. 581, GPR GRANDE,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560099.
10. THE CHINAI COLLEGE OF NURSING,
NO. 378, A BLOCK,
S. MADIWALA, SAMANDURU POST,
HOSUR-ANEKAL MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-562106.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R1, R5, R6
AND R7)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SETTING
ASIDE THE NEW BUILDING LICENSE VIDE NO. BCL-
01102/1502001024/26-27 AND BCL-
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56281
WP No. 29525 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010645632026
01103/1502001024/26-27 BOTH DATED 16.05.2026
PRODUCED AS ANNX-AE AND AF; TO DECLARE THAT
THE CONSTRUCTION BEING PUT UP BY R9 ARE IN
VIOLATION OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE
APEX COURT VIDE ANNX-U DATED 17.12.2024 IN
(2024) SCC ONLINE 3767, PRODUCED ABOVE AND TO
RESTRAIN R8 TO 10 FROM PUTTING UP ANY FURTHER
CONSTRUCTION; TO DIRECT THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT (R5) TO
INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE
KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT 1964 OR SUCH
OTHER PROCEEDINGS FOR VIOLATING THE TERMS
STIPULATED IN ANNX-F DATED 06.03.2019 VIDE NO.
LRF (109) ANEKAL CR/09/2017-18; TO DIRECT R2 THE
PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SAMANDURU
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT TO DEMOLISH THE
CONSTRUCTION PUT BY R8 TO 10 WHICH ARE IN
VIOLATION OF SECTION 64 OF THE PANCHAYAT RAJ
ACT AND ALSO TO CANCEL THE ELECTRONIC KHATHA
ISSUED IN FORM 11(B) IN THE NAME OF R7
PRODUCED AS ANNX-R; TO DIRECT R3 TO R6 TO
INITIATE INQUIRY AND TO CANCEL THE APPROVALS/
LICENSES ISSUED TO R8 TO 10 TO RUN THE SCHOOL
HOSTEL AND NURSING COLLEGE BY CONSIDERING
THE REPRESENTATIONS PRODUCED AS ANNX-P; TO
INITIATE APPROPRIATE REMEDY AGAINST R2 AND 7
FOR BLATANTLY VIOLATING THE PLANNING LAWS AND
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56281
WP No. 29525 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010645632026
THE MANDATE OF THE HONBLE APEX COURTS RULING
AND HOLD RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH VIOLATIONS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are calling in question the
Building License dated 16.05.2026 issued by the
second respondent in favour of the eighth
respondent. The petitioners have stated thus insofar
as their locus is concerned.
[a] The first petitioner is a permanent
resident of S. Madiwala Village, Kasaba
Hobli, Anekal Taluk and a social worker.
The second petitioner is a permanent
resident of Geritanabele Village, Kasaba
Hobli, Anekal Taluk.
[b] The petitioners assert that both the
villages of S. Madiwala and Geritanabele
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56281
WP No. 29525 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010645632026
are within the limits of Samanduru
Village Panchayat represented by the
second respondent. Samanduru Village
Panchayat has admitted the impugned
Building License in favour of the eighth
respondent, a ‘ Trust’ for construction in
Survey No. 184/13 of Samanduru Village.
2. It is undisputed that the construction that
is permitted by the second respondent in favour of
the eighth respondent is in a village in which the
petitioners do not reside or have any interest other
than being residents of two separate neighbouring
village. The second respondent to impugn the
Building License issued in favour of the eighth
respondent relies upon a communication purportedly
sent by Member Secretary, Anekal Planning Authority
to him as an elected Member asserting that this
communication is a direction/a request to the second
respondent to take stringent action against the eighth
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56281
WP No. 29525 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010645632026
respondent for violating from the building norms in
terms of the Circular dated 16.06.2020.
3. The question for consideration is whether
this Court can infer a personal cause in either of the
petitioners to deduce locus in them to challenge the
impugned building license. Sri. S. Venkatesh
Shastry, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.
Bopanna Belliappa, a learned Additional Government
Advocate who accepts notice for the first fifth, sixth
and seventh respondents, are heard.
4. Sri. Venkatesh Shastry relies upon the
decision of the Apex Court in ‘ Dipak Kumar
Mukherjee v. Kalkata Municipal Corporation and
1
Others’ to contend that the Courts must enforce
performance of a statutory duty by public authorities
at the instance of taxpayers who have a legal right to
demand compliance by the Authorities insofar as the
1
AIR 2013 SC 927
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56281
WP No. 29525 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010645632026
duty to ensure statutory rights. The learned counsel
submits that the Apex Court has also observed that
“all the residents in the area have their personal
interest in the performance of the duty ” and that their
substantial interest is injured by illegal construction.
The learned counsel also proposes to rely upon a
decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of
Kolkata in ‘Dr. R Thulasidasan v. Shri M Sethu and
Others’ [ decided on 28.08.2026 in MAT No.82/2026 and
connected matter ] stating that this proposition has
been followed by the Division Bench.
5. The petitioners do not reside in
Samanduru Village and they are residents of two
other distinct villages though within the limits of the
same Panchayat. Their grievance as residents of two
different villages is very remote to infer a locus or a
substantive interest in the construction that is being
put up under a license in another village. This Court
also observes that the second petitioner proposes to
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56281
WP No. 29525 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010645632026
rely upon certain communication sent to him as an
elected Member and not in his capacity as an
ordinary resident . These, in this Court's considered
view, does not behold of a situation which speaks of a
cause for vindication of a personal substantive right.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
The petition is rejected on the
ground of locus observing that this Order
cannot preclude any cause that could be
open to the petitioners to espouse a cause
otherwise or absolve the Authorities of
any consequence that could be in law.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
AN/-