Settlement of a setback dispute does not bar the development authority from exercising its statutory duties.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Chikkamagaluru Development Authority to act against alleged unauthorised construction by respondents 1 and 2, said to encroach on the southern setback.

During the proceedings, respondents 1 and 2 filed a joint affidavit stating that they had removed the disputed portion and provided a 3¼-foot southern setback, and undertook not to make future construction in violation of the sanctioned plan or applicable law.

The petitioner then filed a memo seeking disposal of the petition on the basis of that affidavit.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to seek public-law relief against alleged unauthorised construction.

The Court did not determine the substantive requirements of the applicable municipal laws, sanctioned building plan, licence, or building bye-laws; it recorded the parties’ stated compliance and left the Development Authority free to exercise its statutory duties if warranted.

Respondents 1 and 2 represented that they had removed the disputed construction and undertaken to avoid future violations, while the petitioner asked the Court to dispose of the petition on the basis of their joint affidavit.

In view of that understanding and the petitioner’s decision not to pursue the proceedings further, the Court disposed of the petition.

Because the Development Authority was also a party, the Court expressly preserved its ability to perform any statutory duties warranted by the circumstances.

The Authority’s statutory duties, if warranted by the circumstances, were left open.