JNANABHARATHI PRIMARY SCHOOL v. THE TOWN PANCHAYATH BHAGYANAGAR

MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:900 WP No. 100781 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking judicial review of the endorsement dated 17.12.2024 and the notice dated 20.12.2024 issued by the respondent- Panchayath, whereby the petitioner was directed to stop construction of the school building. Brief facts:

The petitioner is a primary school running for several decades. The land in question bearing property No.118, was originally granted by the Tahsildar and subsequently transferred in the name of the petitioner- institution. The petitioner applied for building permission for construction of additional classroom. Initially, a mistake had crept in Form No.3 relating to boundary description. Upon noticing the error, the petitioner sought rectification. After enquiry, the competent authority rectified the mistake and issued a fresh Form No.3 in accordance with the title deed. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a fresh application for - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:900 WP No. 100781 of 2025 HC-KAR building permission. As no order was passed within the statutory period prescribed under Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (‘Act’ for short), the petitioner proceeded with the construction under the impression deemed permission. Subsequently, respondent issued the impugned endorsement rejecting the application and stop work notice alleging boundary discrepancy and encroachment, without furnishing any inspection report or particulars of violation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the earlier defect in Form No.3 was rectified by the competent authority after due enquiry. The impugned endorsement and notice are issued mechanically, without conducting any inspection. There is no material placed on record to establish, encroachment or deviation from the sanction limits. It is contended that the action of the respondent is contrary to Section 187 of the Act and principles of natural justice. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:900 WP No. 100781 of 2025 HC-KAR

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that the petition is not maintainable due to the availability of alternative remedy, that there is a discrepancy in the boundaries shown in the documents and the petitioner is allegedly encroaching upon a public road. Further, it is contended that the respondent is empowered under Section 187 to stop unauthorized construction.

Having heard learned counsel on both sides, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the impugned endorsement dated

17.12.2024 and notice dated 20.12.2024 can be sustained in the absence of an inspection report or material establishing violation encroachment”.

Upon careful consideration of the pleadings and material on record, this Court finds that: i. The respondent has not placed any inspection report, mahazar, sketch, measurement record or - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:900 WP No. 100781 of 2025 HC-KAR contemporaneous material to substantiate the allegation of encroachment or deviation. ii. The impugned endorsement and notice does not disclose when, why, whom and in what manner any inspection was conducted. iii. Mere assertion of violation or encroachment without supporting material cannot form basis for stopping construction, particularly when the petitioner had obtained rectified documents pursuant to an order of the competent authority. iv. The issue as to whether there is actual violation or encroachment requires factual determination based on proper inspection and verification which has admittedly not been done. v. In the absence of such material, the impugned actions cannot be sustained. However, since the respondent is a statutory authority, it would be - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:900 WP No. 100781 of 2025 HC-KAR appropriate to remit the matter consideration after due inspection and compliance with law.