- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6221 WP No. 100148 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 100148 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. KANAKARAJ S/O SADANANDA SA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, ”DURGA SAVJIKHANAVALI”, R/O: WARD NO.3, GANGA CAMP, KANAKAGIRI POST AND TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583 283. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATHISH.M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KANAKAGIRI-583 283, KOPPAL DISTRICT. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN.K.UPPAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.C.JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6221 WP No. 100148 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Sathish.M.S., counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Praveen K.Uppar., AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri.B.C.Jnanayyaswami., counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the existing commercial shop in schedule mentioned properties or part thereof without following the due procedure of law. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The petitioner contends that he is running Khanavali business in the schedule property for many years. The petitioner also contends that a permission letter was issued from time to time in his favor by the second respondent and subsequently, he was permitted orally to run his business in the schedule property. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6221 WP No. 100148 of 2025 5. The short controversy is about the perceived threat of demolition of the building. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner is that the respondents without issuing notice and without providing an opportunity, high handedly, ordered orally to remove his shop or else they would demolish under the guise of road widening. The petitioner apprehends his property will be demolished, but this is just a felling, not a confirmed action. The possibility of his property being demolished is only an apprehension, not a confirmed event. Moreover, the notice is also not issued for the demolition. The reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be accorded at this juncture. The Writ Petition is pre-mature. 7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP/RH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 54.1