- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5759-DB WA No. 4834 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT APPEAL NO. 4834 OF 2016 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. A.N. MADANKUMAR S/O. LATE A.V. RAMARAO AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS RESIDING AT NO. 2986/1 7TH MAIN, MCC-B BLOCK DAVANAGERE CITY-577 004. 2. SRI. SAVAN Y. AMBERKER S/O. LATE Y. Y. AMBERKER AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS RESIDING AT OLD P.B. ROAD DAVANAGERE CITY -577 004. 3. N. V. AMBERKER SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS a) MOHAN NAMBERKER S/O. LATE N.V. AMBERKER AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS RESIDING AT OLD P.B. ROAD DAVANAGERE CITY-577 004. b) A N RAVINDRANATH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5759-DB WA No. 4834 of 2016 (b)(i) JAYASHRI R AMBERKER W/O LATE A N RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT OLD P B ROAD DAVANAGERE CITY – 577004. (b)(ii) ABHIJITH R AMBERKER S/O LATE A N RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT OLD P B ROAD DAVANAGERE CITY – 577004. (cause title amended vide court order dated 12.04.2023) (c) A.N. RAMESH S/O LATE N.V. AMBERKER AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS C/O. AMBERKER VIRUPANNA TESTILES OPP. OLD BUS STAND OLD PB ROAD DAVANAGERE - 577 004. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR SWAMY G S – ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S V PRAKASH - ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (C&B) K.R. CIRCLE, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SHIMOGA CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5759-DB WA No. 4834 of 2016 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DAVANAGERE DIVISION DAVANAGERE-577 601. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION DAVANAGERE-577 601. 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE. 7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION DAVANAGERE. 8. THE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DAVANAGERE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE CITY DAVANAGERE - 577 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A S – AGA FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 7; MS. HARINI – ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B K MANJUNATH - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.8) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT PETITION 58719/2015 DATED 19/10/2016. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5759-DB WA No. 4834 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.58719/2015 dated 19.10.2016. 2. Learned counsel Sri Shivakumar Swamy G.S. representing Sri S.V.Prakash for appellants is present before the Court physically. Similarly, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and learned counsel Ms.Harini representing Sri B.K.Manjunath for respondent No.5 are present before the Court physically. 3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the ancestor of the appellants by name Doddayallappa purchased the schedule property from one Bhondade Balappa under registered sale deed for valuable consideration and subsequently, in the year 1930 constructed residential house in the schedule property. Thereafter there was partition among the members of the family of the appellants and in the said partition, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5759-DB WA No. 4834 of 2016 property was divided into three parts and allotted to A.V.Ramrao, N.A.Ambreker and Y.Y.Ambreker measuring 60 x 100 feet and rest of the area was allotted to the shares of other two brothers. It is contended that the Government issued Circular dated 18.12.1997 wherein there was a direction to the Public Works Department not to demolish the buildings constructed in the private property even if they lie within the road margin and if those buildings to be demolished for the development of the road, the said properties have to be acquired by initiating proceedings for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. However, the respondents without notice had demolished portion of their building against which W.P.No.58719/2015 came to be filed before this Court. The learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed that the matter was adjourned to two occasions on the request of the counsel appearing for the appellants and therefore, the petitioners have taken the litigation leisurely instead of vigorously and relegated the petitioners to go before the competent Civil Court for - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5759-DB WA No. 4834 of 2016 redressal of their grievances. These are all the contentions taken by the counsel for the appellants. 4. Appellants are the owners of the schedule property situated alongside old P.B.Road (now claimed to have been designated as Birur-Sammassgi State Highway No.76) in Davanagere City. The respondents had orally directed the appellants to demolish the portion of the building standing on the schedule property for widening of the road. Since the appellants refused to demolish, the respondents have demolished the portions of the building on the schedule property. These are all stated in the brief facts of the case. However, the learned single Judge in the impugned order has observed that from the record of the case also it appears that this writ petition was filed in this Court 19.12.2015. At least on two occasions, the order sheet would show that on 21.07.2016 when the matter first came up before the Court, the matter was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the petitioners and again on 25.08.2016 it was so adjourned at his request again. Therefore, prima facie, it also - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5759-DB WA No. 4834 of 2016 appears that the petitioners have taken this litigation leisurely instead of vigorously pursing the same. Be that as it may, that is not very relevant at this stage in as much as this Court is of the firm opinion that in such cases, writ petition is not the appropriate remedy and filing of civil suit with clear and specific averments is the only appropriate remedy in such cases. The plaintiffs or petitioners must establish their case with relevant evidence before the competent Civil Court before urging the Courts to grant compensation in such cases. On the basis of mere affidavits, this Court would be able to decide the legality of the action taken by the respondents and then determine the quantum of compensation, if any payable to the petitioners. With the said observation, the writ petition came to be dismissed. 5. Keeping in view the submission made by the counsel for the appellants and so also, having gone through the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition, we deem appropriate to state that it does not arise for dwelling in detail into the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5759-DB WA No. 4834 of 2016 impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. We do not find any illegality or infirmity committed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. However, the appellants are at liberty to agitate their issues before the compe tent Civil Court. With the above observation, the writ appeal stands disposed of. SD/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE SD/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE DKB