- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17377 WP No. 100662 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 100662 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. SHAILAJA W/O. SADANAND BYAKOD, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. 6504, GREVENCY PRESTIGE MONTE CARLO, ANANTHAPURA GATE, DODDABALLAPUR ROAD, YALAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ROOM NO.341, A, A-WING, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 2. THE SECRETRY MINISTRY OF RRURAL DEVELOMENT (DRD) KRISHI BHAVAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001. 3. THE PRESIDENT THE KARNATAKA RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 3RD FLOOR, GRAMEENA ABHIVRUDHI BHAVANA, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU. 4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.12.11 16:18:06 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17377 WP No. 100662 of 2023 5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, NO.335, 3RD FLOOR, VIKS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD SUB-DIVISION, BADAMI. 7. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PMGSY), Z. P. ENGINEERING DIVISION, Z. P. OFFICE,BAGALKOT. 8. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOTE-587103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R3 TO R6 AND R8; SRI M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. BHUSHAN KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06/06/2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-K BEARING NO.K.R.R.D.A/TECHNICAL/09/234/2022- 23/670 WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17377 WP No. 100662 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order dated 06.06.2022, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation for the formation of a road on a hitherto existing road has been rejected. 2. Heard Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and 8; Sri M.B. Kanavi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2; and Sri Bhushan Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No. 7. 3. The facts in brief germane to the case are as follows: 4. The husband of the petitioner purchased land in R.S. No.109/2 measuring 6 acres 37 guntas, situated at Bankaneri Village, Badami Taluk, under a registered sale deed dated 12.03.2009. The said property was subsequently gifted to the petitioner on 10.02.2020. 5. The petitioner then came to know that the cart road existing on the property had been converted into a regular road and that the public were using it. Accordingly, she submitted a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17377 WP No. 100662 of 2023 representation on 10.02.2021 seeking compensation from the respondent-State. As the said representation was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 104293/2021, pursuant to which a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation. 6. Pursuant to the said direction, the representation was considered, which resulted in the passing of the impugned order. The impugned order has now driven the petitioner back to this Court. 7. Sri Jagdish Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that if the cart road is shown in the village map, it would not constitute private property and would become public property, and therefore no compensation can be claimed. 8. Learned counsel submits that the village map does not show the existence of any cart road which has now been formed into a regular road, and therefore the petitioner is entitled to seek compensation on that ground. 9. The learned AGA submits that it is the petitioner’s own contention that a cart road existed. If such a cart road was being used by the public at large, it cannot be claimed as private property. In that light, he seeks dismissal of the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17377 WP No. 100662 of 2023 10. The afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass, namely, whether the cart road was a public road or a road situated within the petitioner’s property. Therefore, the respondent-State shall now reconsider the matter afresh and, upon examining the village map, ascertain whether a cart road exists or whether the cart road earlier existed within the petitioner’s property. The respondent-State shall then determine the compensation, if any, and consider payment of such compensation after due determination in accordance with law. 11. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the respondents within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim with respect to the cart road. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AC CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6