- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10771 WP No. 107950 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.107950 OF 2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI NAGESH S/O CHIDAMBER KULKARNI, AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O C.T.S.NO.490/1 RAMALING-KHIND GALLI, BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI GANESH S/O RAMACHANDRA KULKARNI AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O CTS NO.490/1 RAMALING-KHIND GALLI, BELAGAVI. - PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER CITY CORPORATION, BELAGAVI AND MEMBER DISTRICT LEVEL TASK FORCE BELAGAVI. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CITY OF BELAGAVI. 6. THE BELAGAVI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10771 WP No. 107950 of 2015 7. THE HESCOM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1,R2,R4 & R5; SRI. VINAY KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. M.A. HULYAL, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO DESIST FROM DEMOLISHING THE CONSTRUCTIONS, BUILDINGS OF THE PETITIONERS SITUATED AT CTS NO.490/1 MEASURING 130-43 SQUARE METERS SITUATED AT RAMALING-KHIND GALLI BELAGAVI AND DISPOSSESSING THEM EXCEPT BY TAKING RECOURSE TO LAW BY ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The writ petition has been filed by the owner of the property seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to desist from demolishing the construction of the building of the petitioner situated at Ramaling Hind Galli, Belagavi, with a further direction to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner except by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10771 WP No. 107950 of 2015 taking recourse to lawful process by way of acquisition of the property. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of the property measuring 130-43 sq.mtrs. It is further stated that there is a proposal for road widening as is evidenced from the advertisement in a local newspaper. It is submitted that the respondent authorities may take recourse to widening of the road in terms of the master plan. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 reiterates the stand as made out in the statement of objection. Perused the statement of objections of respondent No.3. It is noticed that respondent No.3 has taken the stand that in light of density of traffic there is a necessity to widen the road and many of the residents of the locality have requested the respondent to widen the road and have come - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10771 WP No. 107950 of 2015 forward to surrender the land voluntarily. It is submitted that in light of such stand by the property owners, the respondent has made marking on the properties in order to facilitate the road widening. Further it is submitted that many of the property owners after taking note of the markings have removed portion of their houses and shops voluntarily and surrendered land to facilitate road widening free of costs. It is further asserted specifically at paragraph No. 7 that as the petitioner did not agree to surrender the land, the said property has not been touched and is in tact. Heard both sides. It must be noticed that if now the third respondent seeks to widen the road, right to property of the petitioner under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, cannot be interfered except in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition itself could be disposed of taking note that the petitioner is not willing to voluntarily surrender his property, in terms of the following directions. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10771 WP No. 107950 of 2015 (a) Respondent authorities cannot interfere with the property rights of the petitioner except in accordance with law; (b) If the respondent No.3 or the State intends to make use of the property of the petitioner for road widening, needless to state that the property has to be acquired in accordance with law relating to land acquisition; (c) In the event the respondent authorities are of the view that there has been any encroachment of the right of way by the petitioner, needless to state that any action against the petitioner could be taken but strictly in accordance with law, i.e., Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, after following the procedure provided under the Act. An enquiry in that regard will have to be conducted affording opportunity to the petitioner and only thereafter further proceedings could be taken. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10771 WP No. 107950 of 2015 With the above observations, the petition is disposed off while clarifying that the respondents are restrained from interfering with the rights of the petitioner except in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE BVV, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3