- - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43057 WP No. 39950 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 39950 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. LAKSHMAN RAO B R S/O LATE RAJOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC:NIL R/O B H ROAD BESIDE PANDURANGA VITTALA TEMPLE BIRUR TOWN KADUR TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577116 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S V PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARANATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI K R CIRCLE BANGALORE-1 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT(C & B) DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-1 Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43057 WP No. 39950 of 2013 2 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT CHIKMAGALUR-577101 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BIRUR SUB DIVISION BIRUR CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577116 5. THE SUPDT. ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAY CIRCLE K R CIRCLE BANGALORE-1 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BIRUR SUB DIVISION BIRUR, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577116 7. TOWM MUNICIPALITY BIRUR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577116 8. THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI-111001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. .,ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ALSO FOR THE STRUCTURE STOOD THEREON IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.POST W.P. FOR PRLY. HG. BEFORE SINGLE JUDGE. - - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43057 WP No. 39950 of 2013 3 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4; Sri. S. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 and Sri. Harsha P. Banad, learned CGC learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8; Sri. P. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 5 and 6 and Sri. Anirudha A. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.9. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner in respect of the - - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43057 WP No. 39950 of 2013 4 property being demolished by the respondent- authorities for the purpose of widening of National Highway No. 206 (Tumkur-HOnnavara National HIghway). 3. It is argued by Sri. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner that, the schedule property belonging to the petitioner has been demolished without any notice to the petitioner and the petitioner had acquired the schedule property as per the proceedings in FDP No.15 of 1994 (Annexure-A). It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the order dated 10.08.2011 in W.P.No.23879 of 2010 (Annexure-V) and by referring to paragraph 7, it is contended that the respondent- authorities without providing fair opportunity to the petitioner had demolished the house of the petitioner as per the photographs (Annexures-W and X series) produced in the writ petition. It is also argued by the - - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43057 WP No. 39950 of 2013 5 learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to Annexure-AW, wherein, the respondent No.7, has taken steps for release the compensation in favour of similarly placed persons and the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl No.27 and accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, petitioner being a owner of the schedule property and as acquired/demolished by the respondent- authorities illegally and as such, entitle for compensation from the respondent-authorities. 4. Per contra, Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned counsel for the respondent No.7, reiterates the statement made in the statement of objections, and further contended that the petitioner has sold the schedule property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 05.07.2018, and as such, the petitioner is no more a owner of the property in question and accordingly, sought dismissal of the writ petition. - - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43057 WP No. 39950 of 2013 6 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities and learned Additional Government Advocate argued that, the prayer made in the writ petition does not survive for consideration as the petitioner has to exhaust the remedy by approaching the competent authorities by seeking compensation if any under the circumstances of the case. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on perusal of the writ petition would indicate that, the grievance of the petitioner is to direct the respondents to pay the compensation on account of demolition of the property belonging to the petitioner by the respondent-authorities for the public purpose. Article 300A Constitution of India, mandates that, the right to property is a human right as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Vidya devi vs. - - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43057 WP No. 39950 of 2013 7 State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent No.7 that, the petitioner has sold the property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 05.07.2018. Undisputedly, the title of the petitioner is questioned by the respondents. In that view of the matter, in the event if the petitioner is directed to approach the respondent Nos.3, 5, to 7, and 9 in the writ petition by way of representation, seeking compensation, if any under the circumstances of the case and if such a representation is made by the petitioner and same shall be considered by the respondent-authorities in the light of the observation made by this court at paragraph 7 in W.P.No.23879 of 2010 disposed of on 10.08.2011 (Annexure-V). Paragraph 7 reads as under: "7. Therefore, a direction is issued to the respondents to provide an opportunity to the petitioner - - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43057 WP No. 39950 of 2013 8 to produce documents relating to the ownership by issue of notice, in the event, the respondents desire to widen the road and only thereafter, after determining the right of the petitioner, take action in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the earlier writ petitions, where similar questions had arisen." 7. Following the declaration of law made by this court in the above writ petition so also taking into consideration the fact that, there shall not be deprivation of right guaranteed under 300A of the Constitution of India in respect of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is directed the approach aforementioned respondent-authorities by way of representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with the relevant document to establish his right over the land which has been acquired/demolished as contended by the petitioner in the present writ petition and if such representation along with document is made by the - - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43057 WP No. 39950 of 2013 9 petitioner as stated above, the same shall be considered by respective respondent-authorities within an outer limit of two moths, thereafter and outcome to the same be known to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29