Disposed

Sri.Sooraj Jain v. Sri.Abhinandan N Ballal

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2026WA/1430/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against a Single Judge's direction to authorities to act on villagers' complaint of unauthorised construction encroaching the public road margin. After an enquiry by the Panchayat Development Officer confirmed encroachment, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal directing removal of encroachment after notice.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed with directions: notice for removal of encroachment; authority may remove it at appellant's cost; no relief granted to appellant.

Sri.Sooraj Jain Vs Sri.Abhinandan N Ballal — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18241-DB WA No. 1430 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1430 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI.SOORAJ JAIN S/O NEMIRAJ BALLAL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶12

R/AT JINASHREE ACHCHARRI KATTE PADUMARNADU VILLAGE AND POST MOODABIDRI TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 574 213

¶13

&APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. VINAY N., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

SRI.ABHINANDAN N BALLAL S/O NAMIRAJ BALLAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.1-209 BELIYAARU HOSAMANE PADUMARNADU VILLAGE AND POST MOODABIDRI TALUK

¶18

D K DISTRICT 574 213

¶19

SRI MOHAMMED ASLAM S/O M SHEIKH HASSAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.3-258 AMANABETTU ROAD PADUMARNADU VILLAGE AND POST MOODABIDRI TALUK D K DISTRICT 574 213

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:18241-DB WA No. 1430 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

SRI HARISH HEGDE S/O SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT 1-155A HARI NIVASA PADUMARNADU VILLAGE AND POST MOODABIDRI TALUK D K DISTRICT 574 213

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M S BUILDING

¶25

DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶26

BENGALURU 560001

¶27

REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶28

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALURU 575 001

¶29

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DAKSHINA KANNADA ZILLA PANCHAYAT MANGALURU 575 006

¶30

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT MANGALURU 575 006

¶31

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PADUMARNADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH MANGALURU TALUK D K DISTRICT 574 213

¶32

PADUMARNADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH MANGALURU TALUK D K DISTRICT 574 213 REP BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶33

&RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3; SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R4-R5; SRI. SHARANJITH SHETTY.K, ADVOCATE FOR R6;

¶35

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18241-DB WA No. 1430 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

SRI. MUKUND PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R7;

¶38

SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R8;

¶39

R9 SERVED)

¶40

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2025 PASSED IN WP No27937/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WP No-27937/2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT No-1 TO 3.

¶41

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶43

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶44

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶45

Some Villagers filed W.P.No.27937/2024 alleging

¶46

that the appellant/respondent No.7 in the writ petition, was putting up unauthorized construction and encroaching upon the public road margin and therefore, sought to take appropriate action against him to prevent encroachment on the public road.

¶47

In the instant writ appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27937/2024 (LB-

¶48

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18241-DB WA No. 1430 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

RES), alleging that the action of the respondent/authority

¶51

is politically motivated and he has not put up any unauthorised construction encroaching upon the public road margin. The learned Single Judge disposed of the

¶52

said writ petition with direction to the competent authorities to consider the representation of the villagers and pass appropriate order in accordance with the law.

¶53

3. On 10.03.2026 considering the said submission of

¶54

the appellant, we passed the following order :-

¶55

" ORAL ORDER ON I.A.No.1/2025

¶56

I.A.No.1/2025 is filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 159 days in filing the appeal.

¶57

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A.No.1/2025 is accordingly allowed.

¶58

Respondent No.8-the Panchayat Development Officer shall conduct a fair and impartial enquiry without being influenced by any political/administrative bosses in respect of the allegations against the appellant for having been put

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:18241-DB WA No. 1430 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

up any unauthorized construction upon the road margin.

¶63

Respondent No.8-the Panchayat Development Officer shall remain present on the next date of posting of this writ appeal along with the report and if we find that the petitioners have malafidely prosecuted the appellant, then we will impose heavy cost on the petitioners.

¶64

Needless to state that appellant shall be afforded full opportunity of producing all materials and hearing, before submitting the report by respondent No.8-the Panchayat Development Officer. No coercive measures to be taken against the appellant till the final decision is taken up by this Court, after this Court receives the report from the said respondent No.8-the Panchayat Development Officer.

¶65

Post this writ appeal 02.04.2026."

¶66

The Panchayath Development Officer (for short 'the PDO' ), who is present in person before the Court today,

¶67

submitted that he has filed the report with regard to the construction being made by the appellant. The report is enclosed with the photographs of the site, suggesting that

¶68

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:18241-DB WA No. 1430 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

the appellant has encroached the public road margins while putting up the construction. The report dated 01.04.2026 is reproduced hereunder:

¶72

" As per the Writ Appeal No. 1430/2025 filed in the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the investigation report submitted on 10.03.2026 as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court, on the complaint that 0.26 acre of land in Survey No. 133/1P9 of Padumarnad village under Padumarnad Gram Panchayat of Moodbidri taluk belongs to Suraj Jain and others, and that the building has been extended illegally on the Sadri land and is encroaching on government land.

¶73

The Tahsildar Moodbidri vide letter No. REVONCR/65/2025-E-754105 dated 26.06.2025 submitted a report to the Panchayat along with the map of the Taluk Surveyor, stating that 0.26 acres of land in survey number 133/1 of Padumarnad village, is in the name of Suraj Jain bin Nemiraj Banga and others and encroached government land are surveyed and the map is submitted. The appellant was present and signed the Mahajar during the survey of Sadri.

¶74

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Department. Mangalore, vide letter No. Ka E/Para E U V/K.V/26-26, 930/2024-25, has

¶75

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:18241-DB WA No. 1430 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

identified an unauthorized building on the government land and road margin of said Suraj Jain bin Nemiraj Banga and others, and has identified the road margin inside the building on the said land.

¶79

The appellant was physically marked. Accordingly, as per IRC-73-1980 table - 4, the Recommended Standard for Building and Control line Built up area of the rural road is fixed at 3-5 meters. Accordingly, the average of this value is 4.00 meters, and when it is taken into account and examined, there is a wall in the relevant area from the beginning to the said building and this wall is inside the road margin. In front, there is a furniture workshop and the building is constructed of hollow blocks and cement sheet. The road margin is opposite to this building. It is mentioned that there is no setback for the said building.

¶80

As per the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 10.03.2026 vide Notice No. P.G.P.320/2025-26 dated 16.03.2025, Suraj Jain bin Nemiraj Banga was summoned for on spot inspection on 23.03.2026 as per the order of the court and was asked to appear in person and produce the relevant documents. On 23.03.2026, I, the Panchayat Development Officer, along with the appellant, examined the map given by the Hon'ble Tahsildar and the map given by the

¶81

¶82

NC: 2026:KHC:18241-DB WA No. 1430 of 2025

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

Assistant Executive Engineer and the physical identification made. On this occasion, the appellant was present and signed the Mahazar. Although the appellant informed that he would submit the documents by 5:00 pm on the same day, he has not submitted any documents to the Panchayat.

¶85

As per the report given by the Tahsildar and Assistant Executive Engineer during the spot inspection and as found that as per IRC-73-1980 Table 4, Recommended Standards for Building and Control line do Built up area is fixed as 3-5 meters, accordingly the average of this value is 4.00 meters and that has been taken into consideration.

¶86

Upon inspection, there is a wall in the area from the beginning to the end, and this wall is inside the road margin. In front, there is a furniture workshop, the building is made of hollow blocks and cement sheets, and the opposite side of this building is on the road margin.

¶87

Further, there is a furniture shop and a verandah and a temporary structure, a glass wall, a Gl sheet, are inside the road margin. There is a residential house adjacent to the shop and the perimeter wall of this house is on the road margin (the dimensions are exactly mentioned in the map). The

¶88

¶89

NC: 2026:KHC:18241-DB WA No. 1430 of 2025

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

road margin is indicated in red on the map and the verandah glass wall, and one side of the workshop that fall within this are included in the road margin.

¶92

All these are exactly mentioned in the map and marked in yellow. On perusal of the sketch, it is clear that the road margin is 1.55 meters from the perimeter wall to the east of the building and passes in a circle in the middle and is 1.37 meters to the west of the building. As per the Karnataka Urban and Rural Planning Local Plan Area Land Development Rules Part B of 2025, there should be a setback of 1.25 meters in front of the building. But there is no setback in the Sadri buildings. Therefore, I am submitting this report to the Hon'ble Court as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court."

¶93

Considering the said report, we dispose of this writ

¶94

appeal with a direction to the competent authority to take appropriate action for removal of encroachment made by the appellant on the public road margin.

¶95

The competent authority should first issue notice to

¶96

the appellant for removal of the encroachment on the public road margin. In case of his (failure to remove the

¶97

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:18241-DB WA No. 1430 of 2025

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

encroachment on the public road margin by the appellant

¶100

himself, the authority is at liberty to remove the unauthorized construction of the encroachment portion on the public road margin at the risk and cost of the appellant.

¶101

We hereby direct the competent authority to ensure that all encroachments on the public road margin by any of the person(s), on that side of the road, shall be removed after issuing notice to the encroachers either by themselves or by the authority concerned.

¶102

8. In view disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory

¶103

applications, if any do not survive for consideration, hence stand disposed of.

¶104

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶105

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶106

NG CT:SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Sri.Sooraj Jain v. Sri.Abhinandan N Ballal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Sooraj Jain v. Sri.Abhinandan N Ballal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike Vs M/S Shriprop Projects Pvt. Ltd.

The Secretary Vs Sri M B Basavaraju

M/S Ayana Renewable Power Six Private Limited Vs the Revenue Commissioner

Sri S Ramesh Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Lokesh Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S Surendra Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka