Karnataka High CourtCivil Procedure and EvidenceAdministrative and Public Law

Karnataka HC Rejects Two Neighbouring-Village Residents’ Challenge To Samanduru Building Licence For Lack Of Personal Interest, Without Reaching The Merits

SMT SHASHIKALA Vv.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka HC Rejects Two Neighbouring-Village Residents’ Challenge To Samanduru Building Licence For Lack Of Personal Interest, Without Reaching The Merits. SMT SHASHIKALA V vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The Court rejected the petition for lack of locus.

It also directed

It 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.

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, 9

They sought, among other reliefs, to set aside the licences, restrain further construction, and direct action against alleged planning and statutory violations.

pp. 5–7, 9

The 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, 9

The Court took up the matter for preliminary hearing and considered whether the petitioners had locus to challenge the licences.

pp. 5–7, 9

02Issues

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. 6–9

ii.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. 9

03Law Applied

A petitioner challenging administrative action must demonstrate a personal cause or substantive interest sufficient to maintain the challenge.

p. 7

The 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. 7

Provisions 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. 8–9

Their connection to the impugned licences was therefore too remote to establish a personal or substantive cause.

pp. 8–9

The 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. 9

The Court accordingly did not consider the alleged statutory or planning violations on their merits.

pp. 8–9

05Holding

The Court rejected the petition for lack of locus.

p. 9

It 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. 9
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SMT SHASHIKALA VvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · October 08, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment