- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28872 WP No. 56957 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 56957 OF 2016 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SMT. VASANTHA G W/O K.N.RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT AVALAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUQA BENGALURU-560064 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. MANASA B RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION, BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE-560070 2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BANGALORE CITY ZILLA PANCHAYATH S.KARIYAPPA ROAD, BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE-560070 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION NO.2 K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BANGALORE RURAL MILLERS ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 001 5. KARNATAKA RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 3RD FLOOR, GRAMEENABHIVRUDI BHAVANA, ANANDRAO CIRCLE, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28872 WP No. 56957 of 2016 BENGALURU-560009, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 6. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R3, R4 AND R6; SRI. B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. SIDDARTHA. H.M., ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT IN IA 1/17; R1 - SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01.11.2016 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-J AND GIVE EFFECT TO THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to consider the representations dated 01.11.2016. The petitioner has also sought for writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to follow the due process contemplated under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28872 WP No. 56957 of 2016 the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act of 2013' for short) and to acquire the required extent of land for the purpose of the formation of road. 2. The petitioner contends that she is the absolute owner of 1 acre 15 guntas of land in Avalahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, having purchased it lawfully in terms of a sale deed dated 02.02.2013. After such purchase, the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records as per MR Extract vide RR/INA/CR/12/15- 16. She contends that the Public Works Department of State Government had embarked upon a project to form a road in the middle of his property without notice and without acquisition. The petitioner therefore filed O.S.No.73/2006 for perpetual injunction against the State Government and its authorities. The suit after the contest was decreed on 29.09.2012. 3. (i) The petitioner contends that the respondents again attempted to form a road within her property without any notice and without following the due process. The petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28872 WP No. 56957 of 2016 therefore caused a notice dated 06.11.2015 on the respondents notifying them about the permanent injunction granted in O.S.No.73/2006. The petitioner claimed that the respondent No.1 was informed by his subordinate officers that the "Namma Grama Namma Rasthe" project is being implemented in a portion of survey No.107 belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore contends that the respondents are now attempting to form a road, under a different scheme, inside her property, without following the due process of law. The respondent No.3 purportedly issued a reply to their notice dated 06.11.2015 stating public works has no intention to form any road and it is not interested in taking possession of the property of the petitioner. The petitioner was advised to take up the issue with the authority concerned which was trying to form the road. (ii) The petitioner therefore contends that the respondents are trying to form the road without following the due process of law. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation to all the official respondents requesting them not to interfere with his possession. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28872 WP No. 56957 of 2016 (iii) The petitioner contends that in similar circumstances this Court in W.P.No.58967/2013 and W.P.No.38408/2013 had held in terms of the order dated 27.06.2014 that the state agencies cannot usurp the land belonging to private persons unless the due process prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is complied. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking for the directions as aforestated to the respondents. 4. An application (I.A.No.1/2017) was filed during the pendency of this petition for impleadment wherein it was stated that the proposed respondent was the owner of survey Nos.108/4 and 108/5 in Avalahalli village, measuring 5 acres 15 guntas. It was claimed that between the northern portion of survey Nos.108/4 and 108/5 and the southern portion of survey No.107 there was a pathway (Oni), which existed from time immemorial and that the pathway was used by the vendor of the applicant to access survey Nos.108/4 and 108/5. It was contended that the applicant after getting the land converted, used it for establishment of an educational institution. It was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28872 WP No. 56957 of 2016 claimed that the petitioner after obtaining an order of stay from this Court in this writ petition has cordoned off the property bearing survey No.107 and that he has thereby blocked access to the property bearing survey Nos.108/4 and 108/5. This Court after considering I.A.No.1/2017 filed by the impleading applicant, passed an order dated 24.04.2017 that the area proposed to be used up for road shall not be asphalted and shall not be used generally as a road but shall be used only for the purpose of passage of the school bus belonging to the proposed respondent. 5. During the pendency of this petition, several orders were passed for identification of the pathway allegedly existing between survey Nos.108/4 and 108/5, which culminated in an undated survey report, which the learned Senior Counsel for the proposed respondents identifies it to be as per the letter dated 08.03.2023 addressed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Bengaluru Nagara Zilla Panchayath to the Executive Engineer, Project Cell, Bengaluru Nagara Zilla Panchayath. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28872 WP No. 56957 of 2016 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that if the respondents propose to use or utilize any portion of the land belonging to the petitioner, the same has to be in accordance with the Act of 2013. 7. (i) The learned Additional Government Advocate has filed an affidavit of the Chief Operating Officer, Karnataka Rural Roads Development Agency on 16.11.2023 wherein it is stated that the State Government vide order dated 20.12.2014 had directed the development and improvement of roads lying within various districts of the State of Karnataka within a distance of 8 km to 20 km of municipal areas. Subsequent thereto, administrative approval was granted vide order dated 31.03.2015 for development and improvement of the roads mentioned therein. Accordingly, 20.25 kilometers of road lying within Yelahanka constituency was taken up for improvement and development. (ii) It is contended that 1.91 km from Doddaballapura main road to Avalahalli was also included in the project. It is claimed that as per the village map, the road was shown as a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28872 WP No. 56957 of 2016 cart track and measured 71 meters in length and 10.5 meters in width, which was being used as a cart road and it was also mentioned that in the district rural road plan that 1.91 km of road, as stated above, was taken up for improvement at a cost of Rs.89,83,000/-. It is claimed that the Central Government had launched the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (henceforth referred to as 'PMGSY' for short) for upgradation of the existing roads in various districts all over the country and the guidelines for the said scheme provided that rural roads in the districts have to be improved. (iii) It is contended that the State Government on similar lines, had also started a programme known as "Namma Grama Namma Rasthe". It is thus contended that the improvements of the roads under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana as well as Namma Grama Namma Rasthe are taken up for improvement and development of all roads within the districts and one such road was the road from Doddaballapura Road to Avalahalli. (iv) It is stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District and Chief Executive Officer of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28872 WP No. 56957 of 2016 Bengaluru City had taken up the issue and had convened a meeting of all revenue officials as well as the General Secretary of the Presidency School, Avalahalli (proposed respondent in I.A.No.1/2017), whereunder the representative of the school had agreed to pay the market value of the land, to be utilized for development of the road, to the petitioner and in the alternative, the representative of the school had agreed to purchase the land required from the petitioner as per the guideline value. Thereafter, the proceedings were held under the chairmanship of the Chief Executive Officer on 18.09.2019 for negotiation between the petitioner and the promoter of the school. The petitioner purportedly did not accept the negotiation which was held on 18.09.2019 and thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court objecting to the formation of the road. 8. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the affidavit contending therein that there was no cart road in the village map, as claimed by the respondent authorities. The petitioner therefore contended the claim of the respondent that a cart - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28872 WP No. 56957 of 2016 road existed was only to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of his land. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the proposed respondent and the learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 4. 10. From a perusal of the records, one fact is clear, namely that the petitioner is the owner of land bearing survey No.107 of Avalahalli. The revenue records as on date stand in the name of petitioner. Therefore, even if the official respondents have a noble thought of developing and improving roads within the districts, they have to follow the due process of law, namely to acquire the required land in the manner known to law and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. They cannot make use of the land belonging to the petitioner arbitrarily or high handedly. The respondents cannot invade or belittle the constitutional right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person shall be dispossessed at his property without - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28872 WP No. 56957 of 2016 following the due process of law. Therefore, the respondents are constitutionally bound to follow the due process of law before using up any portion of the land belonging to the petitioner. It appears that the proposed respondent in I.A.No.1/2017 was the one who was steering the official respondents or compelling them to form the road within the property of the petitioner under the guise of implementation of "Namma Grama Namma Rasthe" Scheme. Therefore, the petitioner cannot put on the guillotine to meet the need of the proposed respondent. If the proposed respondent wants access to reach his property, he has to establish before the appropriate civil Court that he has a right to pass over the land of the petitioner in order to ingress and egress from his land. Therefore, in view of the judgment passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.73/2006, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of the said decree and the respondents cannot be permitted to take law into their hands and expropriate the land belonging to the petitioner for the proposed road. 11. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to form any road in the land of the petitioner without following the due - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28872 WP No. 56957 of 2016 process of law, namely by acquisition of the required land under provisions of the Act of 2013. 12. Insofar as the proposed respondent is concerned, if he has any right of way over the land of the petitioner, he may establish it in the manner known to law. The writ petition stands disposed off on the above terms. 13. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, all pending applications stand disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39