Smt. Shyla Janardhan Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDERS DECLARING THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 IN PROCEEDING TO FORCIBLY ACQUIRE THE SCHEDULE LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS FOR THE ALLEGED PURPOSE OF WIDENING THE ROAD PASSING FROM NARASIMHARAJAPURA BUS STAND TO T.B CIRCLE IS ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONERS GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 14, 21 AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE PETITIONERS TO ENJOY THE PROPERTY AS GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 300-A OF THE CONSTITUTION., AND ETC.

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:20381 WP No. 11720 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

The case of the petitioners is that their property is sought to be utilized by the respondent-authority for the widening of a road in N.R.Pura, Chikkamagaluru District, without acquisition. Hence, the present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶39

"a. Issue appropriate writ or orders declaring that the action of the respondent no. 4 in proceeding to forcibly acquire the schedule lands of the petitioners for the alleged purpose of widening the road passing from Narasimharajapura Bus Stand to T.B Circle is illegal and violative of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 14, 21 and the constitutional right of the petitioners to enjoy the property as guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution;

¶40

b. Issue appropriate writ or orders restraining the respondents from taking any steps/ action for dispossessing the petitioners from schedule property or destroying any structures/buildings in the schedule property or entering the schedule property except after following due process of law as provided under the Right to Fair Compensation and

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:20381 WP No. 11720 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013;

¶45

c. Issue appropriate writ or orders directing the respondents to immediately stop and drop all proposed actions/plan of widening the road passing from Narasimharajapura Bus Stand to T.B Circle as the proposed plan is not preceded by the procedure laid down under law; and

¶46

d. Grant such other or further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶47

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶48

respondents together submits that the property of the petitioners will be utilized, if required, only in accordance with law and not otherwise.

¶49

No person can be divested of his property

¶50

without following the procedure established by law. If the authorities concerned are required to widen the road,

¶51

unless the adjoining property of the road belongs to the Government and if it belongs to private parties, then in

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20381 WP No. 11720 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

that event, the authorities are required to acquire the same in the manner known to law, pay compensation to the landowners and only thereafter utilise the same. Hence, the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i. The respondents are entitled to utilise the property of the petitioners only after following the due process of law and acquiring the same in the manner known to law, by paying the necessary compensation to the petitioners and not otherwise.

¶57

ii. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶58

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶59

CH

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Smt. Shyla Janardhan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shyla Janardhan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K R Venkatachala Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. K Devaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Smt S Rudramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. R. Manjula Vs Shri. Arul Moli

Sri Umesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Srinivasalu. P. G. Vs the Commissioner