Karnataka High Court
Gerald Sequeira vs Mangalore City Corporation on 16 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20845
WP No. 54264 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.54264 OF 2017 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. GERALD SEQUEIRA
S/O P.J. SEQUEIRA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT ST. REETAS ELECTRIC WORKS
MARKET ROAD, MANGALORE-575 001
D.K. DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION
LALBAGH, MANGALORE-575 003
Digitally REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
signed by
CHAITHRA A ...RESPONDENT
Location:
HIGH (BY SRI SATHY D., ADVOCATE FOR
COURT OF SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCARTE)
KARNATAKA
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.08.2017 IN MA
NO.66/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 6TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A
AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW MA NO.66/2012 FILED BY
PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20845
WP No. 54264 of 2017
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is the owner of a commercial building
bearing Municipal No. 13-3-295 situated at Market Road,
Mangalore. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the
legality and correctness of the demolition order passed by the
respondent-Mangalore City Corporation in exercise of powers
conferred under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal
Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"),
and also the order passed by the appellate authority in
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 66/2012, whereby the demolition
order was confirmed.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ
petition are as follows:
The petitioner claims to be the lawful owner of the
subject property, which is being used for commercial purposes.
It appears that the respondent-Corporation, on noticing
unauthorized construction activity on the first floor of the
petition premises, issued a provisional notice under Section
321(1) of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as
NC: 2025:KHC:20845
HC-KAR
to why the construction carried out without a valid building
licence and without securing an approved plan should not be
demolished.
3. In response to the provisional notice, the petitioner
filed objections denying any new construction on the first floor
and instead contended that what has been undertaken is only
repair work to the roof of the building, which, according to him,
is over 80 years old. However, the respondent-Corporation, not
being satisfied with the explanation furnished, proceeded to
pass a final order dated 19.10.2011 under Section 321(3) of
the Act confirming the demolition of the unauthorized
construction. This order was subjected to appeal before the
competent appellate authority, which, after considering the
rival contentions, dismissed the appeal and upheld the
demolition order. These concurrent orders are now challenged
in the present writ petition.
4. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-
Corporation and has perused the material on record.
NC: 2025:KHC:20845
HC-KAR
5. The principal contention of the petitioner before this
Court is that the construction on the first floor is non-existent
and that only repair works to the roof of the existing structure
were undertaken due to the dilapidated condition of the
building. However, on a close reading of the reply submitted by
the petitioner to the notice under Section 321(1) of the Act, it
is clear that the petitioner has unequivocally denied
undertaking of any new construction and instead taken a
specific stand that only repairs were carried out. It is also
brought to the notice of the Court that despite having the
opportunity to place on record the present condition of the
building through photographs or other material evidence, the
petitioner failed to do so. Counsel for the petitioner has
expressed his inability to secure instructions or photographs
from the petitioner owing to the old nature of the case.
6. This Court has given its anxious consideration to
the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. However, those decisions pertain to cases where
construction was undertaken with minor deviations from the
approved plan or involved compoundable violations. In such
NC: 2025:KHC:20845
HC-KAR
cases, the Courts have directed the authorities to take a lenient
view keeping in mind the substantial investment made and the
potential waste of resources. However, the facts in the present
case are entirely distinguishable.
7. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding
the fact that the petitioner did not apply for a building licence
or submit a building plan for approval before commencing
construction on the first floor. The material on record clearly
indicates that the construction was commenced and completed
in total disregard to the statutory requirements and in blatant
violation of the building by-laws. Despite issuance of a
provisional notice and sufficient opportunity afforded to the
petitioner to respond and comply with the law, the petitioner
proceeded with the construction work.
8. The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976
does not confer any authority upon the Corporation to
regularize constructions which have been undertaken without
any licence or sanctioned building plan. The scheme of the Act
is clear and categorical. Any person intending to erect or
construct a building must obtain prior permission from the
NC: 2025:KHC:20845
HC-KAR
competent authority and the construction must strictly conform
to the sanctioned plan and building by-laws. The object of such
a regulatory framework is to ensure planned development and
public safety, and to prevent haphazard and illegal
constructions. Any construction carried out in absolute violation
of these mandatory provisions cannot be the subject matter of
regularisation. The statute does not contemplate or permit
regularisation of wholly unauthorized constructions, and such
an act, if permitted, would defeat the very object and purpose
of the Act.
9. The contention of the petitioner that only repairs
were carried out is not borne out from the records and is clearly
an afterthought. The authorities have recorded factual findings
based on inspection and assessment that a new first floor
construction has been undertaken without the requisite
approvals. Such findings have been concurrently recorded both
by the Corporation and the appellate authority. This Court, in
exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot lightly interfere with such
concurrent factual findings, particularly when there is no
material placed on record to dislodge them.
NC: 2025:KHC:20845
HC-KAR
10. Though this Court is not oblivious to the hardships
that may be caused to a property owner when demolition is
ordered, such sympathy cannot be a ground to condone or
legitimize illegal constructions that have been erected in brazen
violation of the law. The petitioner, being a property owner, is
presumed to be aware of the statutory requirements and is
under a legal obligation to comply with the same. Failure to do
so cannot result in an advantage to the violator.
11. In view of the above discussion, and having regard
to the fact that the petitioner has constructed the first floor
without securing the mandatory building licence and approval
of building plan, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the
demolition order passed by the respondent-Corporation, as well
as the order passed by the appellate authority.
12. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ALB
