Petitioner alleged respondents were attempting to demolish structures on his property for road widening without acquisition proceedings, violating Article 300A. The court held dispossession without due process is impermissible and directed that eviction occur only through lawful acquisition proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 25114 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
REVANASIDDAPPA. B. G. AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O LATE B.G. CHANNAPPA, RESIDING AT NO 1947/41 HANUMAN NILAYA, 8TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, SWAMY VIVEKANANDA BADAVANE DAVENAGERE, BESIDE TARALABALU KRISHI KENDRA DAVANAGERE SOUTHERN EXTENSION-DVG DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577004.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P V., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R5 V/O DATED 12.09.2024 NOTICE TO R6 IS D/W)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TODIRECT RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM INTERFERING WITH THE PETITIONER PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES IN ANY MANNER INCLUDING THE DEMOLISHING OF THE STRUCTURE/SHEDS STANDING IN THEREON OR UTILIZATION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES, OTHER THAN THROUGH DUE PROCESS OF LAW; DIRECT DECLARING THAT, THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS TO DEMOLISH/UTILIZATION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ANY AUTHORITY OF LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner filed this writ petition stating that the petitioner is the absolute owner in possession and
enjoyment of the petition schedule property. The respondents under the guise of so-called widening of the road, without following the due process of law, arbitrarily attempted to demolish the existing structures and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the petition schedule property. The action of the respondents is in violation of the Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioner aggrieved with the highhanded and arbitrary action of the respondents, filed this writ petition.
counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Spoorthi V., learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
the respondents without due process of law are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the property in question. Hence, he submits that the respondents may be directed to evict the petitioner by due process of law i.e., initiating
NC: 2024:KHC:38115 WP No. 25114 of 2024
land acquisition proceedings. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition.
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
respondents have no right to dispossess the petitioner
from the petition schedule property.
pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is disposed of.
If the respondents intend to widen the road, liberty is reserved to the respondents to acquire the property of the petitioner.
Meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the petition schedule property without due process of law.
Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE
SKS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether respondents can dispossess the petitioner from his property for road widening without initiating acquisition proceedings under due process of law.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Revanasiddappa B.G.
State of Karnataka, Public Works Department
Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District
Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division
Tashildhar, Jagaluru Taluk
Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Jagaluru Sub Division
Ashok S. Kinagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
