A non-adjacent property owner must establish infringement of a personal right to challenge construction.

The petitioner sought a spot inspection of the fourth respondent’s construction, action concerning alleged encroachment on a public road/drainage and land earmarked for a government school, and an action-taken report.

He relied on RTI responses and representations alleging that no sanctioned plan existed.

The petitioner admitted that he owned property in the neighbourhood, but not immediately adjacent to the fourth respondent’s property; the parties also had pending civil litigation.

The Court took up the petitioner’s standing as the threshold question

1. Whether the petitioner, who did not own property immediately adjacent to the fourth respondent’s property, had locus to seek writ directions concerning the construction.

2. Whether the petition should be dismissed for want of locus despite the authorities’ continuing responsibility to act in accordance with law.

A petitioner seeking writ relief against another person’s construction must establish a right or interest in himself and an infringement of that right; a general concern about alleged illegality, without such a showing, does not establish locus in the circumstances of this case.

The petition invoked the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 and the statute described in the prayer as the BBMP Act, 2020; the Court noted that the relevant reference should be to the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, but did not decide any substantive question under those enactments.

The Court considered the petitioner’s neighbourhood connection, alleged encroachment, RTI responses, and repeated representations, but held that these circumstances did not establish a right in the petitioner or an infringement of one.

His admission that he owned property only in the neighbourhood, rather than immediately adjacent to the construction, was decisive on locus; the pending private dispute with the fourth respondent was also noted.

The Court therefore declined to examine the merits of the alleged construction or encroachment.

It clarified, however, that dismissal did not absolve the authorities of their responsibility to act under the law and ensure that the fourth respondent’s construction complied with it.