[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Annapurna W. O Mallikarjun Koujalagi vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1115
WP No. 103688 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.103688 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. ANNAPURNA
W/O MALLIKARJUN KOUJALAGI
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R.O MIG 12,
MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI
TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI,
PIN 590016.
2. SHIVKUMAR
S/O MALLIKARJUN KOUJALAGI
AGED 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R.O MIG 12,
MANJANNA MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI
E TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI,
Digitally signed by
PIN 590016.
MANJANNA E
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.02.02 3. SUNIL
10:01:58 +0530
S/O MALLIKARJUN KOUJALAGI
AGED 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R.O MIG 12,
MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI
TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI,
PIN-590016.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SOURABH MIRJE, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1115
WP No. 103688 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. SAUNDATTI MUNICIPAL PALNNING AUTHORITY
SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI
PIN-591126.
3. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SAUNDATTI
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591126,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R3
R2-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITIN IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT
DATED 19/05/2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT THEREBY
REJECTING THE APPLICATION NO.SNDT-LBPAS-00002/22-23/CLU
FILED BY THE PETITIONER NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AND
CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO POSITIVELY
CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER NO.3 DATED
28/05/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1115
WP No. 103688 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have called in question the
endorsement dated 19.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2,
whereby, the application filed by petitioner No.3 (Annexure-
A) came to be rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State
and learned counsel for respondent No.3.
3. This Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 passed
the following order.
"1. One of the reasons for the application of the
petitioners to be rejected was the existence of the
ITI College and the possible nuisance which could
be caused to the petitioner once they develop the
property.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the ITI College has already been shifted and no
longer functioning at the present location. In that
view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion
that it would be in the interest of justice to permit
the petitioners to submit the necessary documents
in support of the claim of the petitioners to the
respondents, which can be considered by the
respondents and necessary orders passed within 15
days from the date of submission.
3. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the
application.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1115
HC-KAR
4. Registry to print the name of respondent No.2
with the endorsement served and delete the name
of learned counsel Sri.Hanumanthareddy Sahukar,
as that appearing for respondent No.2.
5. Accepting the reasons stated in the application,
I.A.1/2025 filed for dispensation is allowed.
Production of certified copy of Annexure-A is
dispensed with.
6. Re-list on 16.10.2025."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a
memo along with resolution passed by respondent No.3 in
compliance with the order dated 17.09.2025. It is the
submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
respondent No.3 has passed a resolution in favour of the
petitioners, which was forwarded to respondent No.2 and
inturn forwarded to respondent No.1-State for approval. It
is further submitted that the said resolution is presently
pending consideration before respondent No.1. The said
factual position is not disputed by the respondents.
5. In view of the application having been considered
and answered in favour of the petitioners by way of
resolution dated 02.12.2025, the grievance of the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1115
HC-KAR
petitioners in this writ petition stands substantially
redressed. Consequently, no further adjudication on the
merits of the writ petition is warranted.
6. However, since the approval of the resolution is
pending before respondent No.1-State, this Court deems it
appropriate to direct respondent No.1-State to consider and
pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
Pending I.A's, if any, does not survive for
consideration and accordingly, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
AM/-
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34
