01Facts
The petitioners, residents of S. Madiwala and Geritanabele villages, challenged building licences dated 16 May 2026 issued by the Samanduru Village Panchayat’s Panchayat Development Officer in favour of a charitable trust for construction in Survey No. 184/13, Samanduru Village.
pp. 5–7, 9They sought, among other reliefs, to set aside the licences, restrain further construction, and direct action against alleged planning and statutory violations.
pp. 5–7, 9The petitioners did not reside in Samanduru Village; the second petitioner also relied on a communication received in his capacity as an elected member.
pp. 5–7, 9The Court took up the matter for preliminary hearing and considered whether the petitioners had locus to challenge the licences.
pp. 5–7, 902Issues
i.1. Whether residents of neighbouring villages, who do not reside in the village where the licensed construction is taking place, demonstrated a personal or substantive interest sufficient to challenge the building licences
pp. 6–9ii.2. Whether the second petitioner’s reliance on a communication received in his capacity as an elected member established locus to maintain the petition
p. 903Law Applied
A petitioner challenging administrative action must demonstrate a personal cause or substantive interest sufficient to maintain the challenge.
p. 7The petitioners relied on Dipak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Others, AIR 2013 SC 927, for the proposition that residents and taxpayers may seek enforcement of public authorities’ statutory duties concerning illegal construction. That authority was cited by counsel; the Court did not decide the petition on the basis of its application.
p. 7Provisions in the judgment · 2
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 Section 96
Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 Section 64
04Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioners lived in two distinct villages and had no identified interest in the construction in Samanduru Village beyond their status as residents of neighbouring villages within the same Panchayat.
pp. 8–9Their connection to the impugned licences was therefore too remote to establish a personal or substantive cause.
pp. 8–9The second petitioner’s reliance on a communication received as an elected member did not establish a cause in his capacity as an ordinary resident.
p. 9The Court accordingly did not consider the alleged statutory or planning violations on their merits.
pp. 8–905Holding
The Court rejected the petition for lack of locus.
p. 9It clarified that the order did not preclude the petitioners from pursuing any cause otherwise open to them and did not absolve the authorities from any legal consequences.
p. 9Original Court PDF
SMT SHASHIKALA VvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
