T N TYAGRAJ vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — WP/17750/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 12th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: KAHC010394572026

Filing Number

WP/17951/2026

Filing Date

12-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP/17750/2026

Registration Date

12-Jun-2026

Judge

B M Shyam Prasad

Coram

B M Shyam Prasad

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 144 )

Sub-Category

RES-Residuary ( 91 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

12-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.T N TYAGRAJ

    Adv. POORNIMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

  2. 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

  3. 3.. TUMAKURU MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

  4. 4.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

  5. 5.THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

  6. 6.T.N. DHIRESH KUMAR

  7. 7.B.M.RAJENDRA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Jun-2026

    B M Shyam PrasadView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: WP 17750/2026 The Karnataka High Court found that the two-day timeframe (June 10-12, 2026) granted to petitioner T N Tyagraj to remove construction deviations before demolition was unreasonably short. Justice B M Shyam Prasad held that since an appellate remedy existed under Section 443-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, the petitioner deserved adequate opportunity to pursue it. The Court deferred demolition and directed authorities to issue a fresh demolition notice after seven days, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal while reserving all merits for the appellate forum's consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Jun-2026

    Fresh Matter/S

    B M Shyam Prasad

  4. 12-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/17750/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: WP 17750/2026 The Karnataka High Court found that the two-day timeframe (June 10-12, 2026) granted to petitioner T N Tyagraj to remove construction deviations before demolition was unreasonably short. Justice B M Shyam Prasad held that since an appellate remedy existed under Section 443-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, the petitioner deserved adequate opportunity to pursue it. The Court deferred demolition and directed authorities to issue a fresh demolition notice after seven days, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal while reserving all merits for the appellate forum's consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case