- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43430 WP No. 43018 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 43018 OF 2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M. CHALUVAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs 1(A) M.C. SRINIVASA S/O. LATE CHALUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO.390, 5TH CROSS 7TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT (HAMPINAGAR) VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 040. 1(B) M.C. CHALUVARAJ S/O. LATE CHALUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.369, 17TH CROSS 3RD MAIN, IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP R.R. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098. 2. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT N E S COLONY SHETTAHALLI, 3RD CROSS MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDAN S. RAO, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43430 WP No. 43018 of 2017 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571 430. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MALAVALLI SUB DIVISION MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. 4. THE TAHSILDAR MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. 5. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNSEL MALAVALLI REP BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER MALAVALLI-571 430. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. SHARANJITH SHETTY .K, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENTS FROM DEMOLISHING THE BUILDING ERECTED ON THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OR TAKING FORCIBLE POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OR ITS PORTION WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43430 WP No. 43018 of 2017 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to restrain the respondents from demolishing the building constructed on the schedule property or from taking forcible possession of the schedule property without following the due process of law. 2. (i) The now petitioner No.1 (since deceased) was the owner of a property described in the schedule to the writ petition. His name was entered in the property tax register maintained by respondent No.5. Petitioner No.1 purportedly sought permission to construct a RCC structure in the ground floor on the aforesaid property and accordingly a plan and licence was issued on 22.05.1986. He thereafter sought and obtained permission for construction of the first floor which was granted on 04.12.1986. He then made a request for further construction of the second floor for which a licence was issued in the year 1988-1989. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43430 WP No. 43018 of 2017 (ii) When things stood thus, the petitioners claim that the respondents under the pretext of widening the Maddur - Kollegala main road, demolished certain buildings, including the front portion of schedule property in the year 2016. Petitioner No.1 purportedly repaired the building and rented it out to petitioner No.2. It is claimed that respondent Nos.2 to 5 swooped down on the property with an excavator and other demolishing equipments and attempted to demolish the structure. When questioned, the petitioners were informed that the same was required for widening the Maddur - Kollegal main road. The petitioners claim that the action of the respondents is highhanded and illegal and no process known to law was followed. The petitioners are therefore, before this Court seeking for the aforementioned reliefs. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the building licence was granted, petitioner No.1 was directed to keep 03 feet set back from the drainage on the main road and accordingly the petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43430 WP No. 43018 of 2017 No.1 had left a set back of 04 feet from the drainage on the main road. He contends that the respondents cannot take law into their hands and if they want any portion of the property, they are bound to follow the due process of law. However, they had taken law into their hands and demolished the western portion of the building. He therefore prays that a direction be issued to the respondents not to demolish the building on the schedule property and not to take forcible possession. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand fairly submitted that none of the respondents are entitled in law to take forcible possession or demolish the building constructed by the petitioners except without due process of law. He submits that in the present case, the respondents would take necessary steps only in accordance with law. Therefore, he contends that the apprehension of the petitioners is ill-founded and that no direction be issued to the respondents. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43430 WP No. 43018 of 2017 5. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 reiterated the above contentions. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5. 7. The petitioner No.1 is the owner of the property described in the schedule namely, the property bearing assessment No.1338/1064 measuring 60 x 132 feet and 21 feet x 28 feet situated at Malavalli town, where he has raised a commercial complex comprised of ground, first and second floor. If the respondents need any portion of petitioners' property, they are bound to follow the due process of law. If the petitioners have violated the sanctioned plan, or violated the set back norms, the respondents are bound to put the petitioners on notice before initiating any action as the set back area also belongs to the petitioner . Respondent No.5 cannot take - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43430 WP No. 43018 of 2017 law into their hands and dispossess or demolish the existing structure. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in In Re : Directions in the matter of demolition of structures - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291. 8. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed in part and the respondents are directed not to demolish or dispossess the petitioners without following the due process of law namely by notifying the petitioners of their requirement of any portion of the building for the purposes of widening and follow it up with proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition Rehabilitation and resettlement Act, 2013. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48