AMBIKA vs ZONAL OFFICER, MYSURU CITY CORPORATION — 38/2020
Case under Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act Section U/S 443. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th March 2026.
M.A. - Miscellanuous Appeals
CNR: KAMS010045782020
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
38/2020
Filing Date
19-10-2020
Registration No
38/2020
Registration Date
19-10-2020
Court
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU
Judge
427-II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MYSURU
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
AMBIKA
Adv. T.PURNA KUMAR
Respondent(s)
ZONAL OFFICER, MYSURU CITY CORPORATION
THE COMMISSIONER, MYSURU CITY CORPORATION
Hearing History
Judge: 427-II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MYSURU
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 25-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 21-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 17-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court dismissed the appellant's appeal against a municipal notice regarding alleged property encroachment during construction. The judge upheld the notice issued by the Zonal Officer, finding that the Municipal Corporation had authority to issue it based on complaints of construction beyond the appellant's purchased property boundaries. However, the court clarified that the appellant may construct freely within her legally purchased area (18.6 feet x 19.6 feet) and that the corporation can only take action if she constructs beyond this defined boundary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The court dismissed the appellant's appeal against a municipal notice regarding alleged property encroachment during construction. The judge upheld the notice issued by the Zonal Officer, finding that the Municipal Corporation had authority to issue it based on complaints of construction beyond the appellant's purchased property boundaries. However, the court clarified that the appellant may construct freely within her legally purchased area (18.6 feet x 19.6 feet) and that the corporation can only take action if she constructs beyond this defined boundary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts