[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
L A Belur (H.U.F) vs The Commissioner on 2 April, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
REVIEW PETITION NO.447 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.33492 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
L.A. BELUR (H.U.F)
REPRESENTED BY CONSTITUENT
AND COPARCENER SRI A.L. BELUR,
S/O. L.A. BELUR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
SHRI LAKSHMINARASIMHA COMPLEX,
S.J.P. ROAD, K.R. PURAM,
HASSAN - 573 201
ALSO RESIDING AT 501-502,
KESHAVA C.H.S. LTD.,
BUILDING NO.2
JAYA NAGAR, LINK ROAD,
DAHISAR (E),
MUMBAI - 400 053.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI H. MUJTABA, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
THE COMMISSIONER
HASSAN CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
HASSAN - 573 201.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. G.M. ANANDA, ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 READ WITH
ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2025 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.33492/2024 (LB-RES) AND
CONSEQUENTLY, TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.33492/2024 (LB-RES) AS PRAYED FOR
IN THE WRIT PETITION ETC.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 10.03.2026 FOR ORDERS AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, M.I.ARUN J., MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CAV ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by
this Court in W.P.No.33492/2024, the petitioner therein
has preferred this review petition.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner has put up construction on
the property, in violation of the building bye-laws and the
sanctioned plan. The petitioner, instead of co-operating
with the authorities concerned in removing the illegal
structure and bringing the building in conformity with the
sanctioned plan and the building bye-laws, has indulged in
several rounds of litigation. In W.P.No.33492/2024, based
upon the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, on 18.12.2024, the following order has been
passed:
"Sri P. S. Rajagopal, the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner, in continuation of his submissions on the
previous hearing date, submits that this Court must, in
the circumstances of the case, in the least, permit the
petitioner to occupy certain portions of the subject
construction to operation and run [a] a restaurant under
the name and style, 'M/s Hotel Aishwarya Veg.', [b] a
party hall under the name and style, 'M/s Nakshatra
Banquet & Party Hall', [c] a coffee shop under the name
and style 'M/s Café Rainbow Coffee Shop' and [d] a
lodging under the name and style 'M/s Aakash Boarding &
Lodging'.
Sri A. Ravishankar, the learned counsel for the
respondent, submits that his tentative instructions are
that certain notices have been issued, and on the request
for commencement of the businesses as aforesaid, the
learned counsel is empathetic in stating that if additional
floors are built with an extra basement, the entire
building will have to be brought down, and this Court may
therefore not consider any request for interim order to
run any of the aforesaid businesses.
These submissions are considered in the context of
this Court's Order dated 15.04.2024 in W.P.
No.36602/2019 and connected petition and what emerges
as indisputable is that the proceedings have not been
initiated for action against possible construction of
additional area and this is despite definite directions by
this Court. This Court's direction insofar as the
petitioner's right to seek Trade License and commence
business, reads as under:
"C. If despite this opportunity, the
respondent - Municipal Council does not initiate
action, the petitioner must be at liberty to file an
application with the Municipal Council for leave to
occupy the property and for issuance of trade
license and the Commissioner, Municipal Council
is directed to positively consider the same
subject to the availability of parking space."
This Court is of the opinion that at this stage,
balance of convenience is also a factor which has to be
considered apart from irreparable loss. The petitioner has
completed the Building years back and the respondents
are not taking action in accordance with law to verify
whether the building must be brought down. Therefore,
petitioner must be at liberty to commence, without
claiming equity, such interior work as would be necessary
for starting a restaurant, a party hall and coffee shop in
the ground, first and third floors respectively, and
whether the petitioner must occupy the other floors can
be considered later.
If the petitioner is permitted to utilize these three
floors for the aforesaid businesses, it will be permitted to
occupy just 1/3rd of the constructed area, and hence the
Health Officer with the respondent is directed to visit the
afore property and the three floors as stated above and
file a Report with this Court for consideration of the
petitioner's request to establish these three businesses in
the said floors.
The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a
certified copy of this order with the jurisdictional Health
Officer, who shall, by the next date of hearing, file a
report into this Court. The Health Officer shall only report
on the feasibility of housing these businesses in the
aforesaid floors and the measures that the petitioner will
have to be take in that regard.
The office is directed to re-list this petition on
09.01.2025."
3. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent has filed
an undated report on 05.08.2025, which discloses that the
building is constructed in violation of the laws. Hence,
question of directing the respondent to grant trade licence
and issue Khatha in respect of the entire construction does
not arise. As the construction put up by the petitioner is
illegal on the face of it, this Court has passed the following
order in W.P.No.33492/2024:
"ORDER
(i) Writ petition is disposed of.
(ii) Respondent is hereby directed to consider
the request of the petitioner for sanction of E-khata as
well as trade licence in respect of that portion of the writ
petition schedule property wherein construction has been
put-up by the petitioner in accordance with the sanction
plan. The same shall be done within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
(iii) In respect of other portion which the
petitioner is said have constructed in violation of the
sanction plan, petitioner is given liberty to seek
regularization of the same, in accordance with law, if it is
permissible and respondent shall consider the request in
accordance with law. If impermissible to regularize then,
respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner
in the manner known to law."
4. The aforementioned order is sought to be questioned
in this review petition and the petitioner is insisting upon a
direction to be issued to the authorities concerned to issue
trade licence and also E-Khatha in respect of the entire
illegal construction put up by the petitioner on the strength
of the report of the respondent dated 05.08.2025.
5. The request of the petitioner is impermissible and in
contravention of law. In fact, a duty is cast upon the
respondent/authority to remove the illegal structure put up
by the petitioner.
6. There is no error apparent on the face of the record in
the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.33492/2024.
7. For the aforementioned reason, the review petition is
hereby dismissed.
Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration
and they stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
hkh.
