A property owner sought protection against demolition of his commercial property during road widening by state authorities. The State did not dispute that acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 with compensation was required. The court disposed of the petition directing non-interference with possession except through lawful acquisition.
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:40682 WP No. 30246 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30246 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANILAL AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/A LATE NOPARAMIJI R/A NO 43, 9TH CROSS ULLAL MAIN ROAD NEAR ABAY HOSPITAL BENGALURU-560 056
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 528
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, AGA FOR R1-R5; SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR ORDER/DIRECTION 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 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said
HC-KAR
property in any manner whatsoever except through the due process of law. He has also sought for writ directing the respondents not to demolish or utilize any portion of the schedule properties without following the due process of law.
not dispute the fact that the property of the petitioner cannot be used for the formation of widening the road without following the due process of law, namely by acquiring it and
HC-KAR
pay compensation as prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 2013’ for short).The learned counsel for respondent No.6 also does not dispute the above position of law.
NC: 2025:KHC:40682 WP No. 30246 of 2025
HC-KAR
Sri.Mahesh R Uppin, learned counsel are permitted to file a
memo of appearance within ten days.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
BKN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents could interfere with or demolish structures on the petitioner's property for road widening without acquiring it under due process of law and paying compensation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Manilal
The State of Karnataka Public Works Department represented by its Principal Secretary
The Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District
The Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division
The Tahsildar, Jagaluru Taluk
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Jagaluru Sub-Division
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
