- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28187 WP No. 22219 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 22219 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: J SRINVAS SETTY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS LATE J.N HANUMANTHASHETTY, R/A B.T SRINIVASA REDDY BADAVANE VTC, JAGALURU 577528 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE 577 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, DAVANAGERE 577 001. 4. THE TASHILDHAR JAGALURU TALUK, JAGALURU DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 528 Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28187 WP No. 22219 of 2025 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, JAGALURU SUB DIVISON, JAGALURU DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 528. 6. THE TOWN PANCHAYAT, JAGALURU, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577528 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.BOPANNA B AGA FOR R1 – R5 SRI. MAHESH R UPPIN., ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR ORDER/DIRECTION RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM INTERFERING WITH THE PETITIONERS PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN ANY MANNER INCLUDING THE DEMOLISHING OF THE STRUCTURE STANDING IN THEREON OR UTILIZATION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES, OTHER THAN THROUGH DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This captioned petition is filed seeking a writ in the nature of prohibition/direction restraining the respondents from demolishing the structure owned by the petitioner without following due process of law. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28187 WP No. 22219 of 2025 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the material on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner citing an identical order passed by this Court in an analogous case, would contend that respondent No.6 under the garb of road widening is intending to utilize the private property at the instance of State Administrative Authorities and also due to political pressure. 4. This Court has, in a series of authoritative pronouncements, consistently held that the State and its instrumentalities are not entitled to interfere with or appropriate private property without following the due process prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act or other enabling statutory provisions. While it is true that the right to property no longer retains the status of a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, through a catena of judgments, has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28187 WP No. 22219 of 2025 reaffirmed that the right to property is nonetheless a valuable constitutional right protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. This Article mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law, thereby imposing a negative obligation on the State to act only in accordance with law when dealing with private property. 5. It is equally well-settled that municipal and local authorities, though empowered to implement developmental works such as road widening and infrastructure improvement upon issuance of street alignment notifications or town planning schemes, must strictly adhere to the statutory scheme governing such acquisitions. Even where there exists a valid alignment plan, the execution of such projects cannot be carried out by forcibly taking over private land or by allowing encroachments upon the same without initiating acquisition proceedings and compensating the lawful owner in accordance with law. Any such unilateral action - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28187 WP No. 22219 of 2025 amounts to unauthorized deprivation and is constitutionally impermissible. 6. In the present case, the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of similarly situated properties abutting the very same street, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Sri. U. Lokamurthy vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No.20624/2025, by order dated 21.09.2024, has granted interim protection, restraining the authorities from proceeding with any work affecting the petitioner’s property, pending compliance with legal requirements. The petitioner, being identically situated and similarly circumstanced, is therefore entitled to parity in protection as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. In view of the above legal position, and having regard to the binding nature of the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in Sri. U. Lokamurthy, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28187 WP No. 22219 of 2025 similar protection. Consequently, appropriate directions are liable to be issued to the respondent authorities to refrain from interfering with the petitioner’s property or utilizing the same for any public purpose unless and until due process of law is followed, including issuance of requisite notifications, conduct of acquisition proceedings, and payment of lawful compensation in accordance with the applicable law. 8. For the foregoing reason, this Court passes the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition stands allowed. (ii) The respondent authorities are hereby restrained from demolishing or interfering with the petitioner’s property or taking any coercive or constitutive action in respect thereof, except in accordance with law and without following the due process prescribed under the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28187 WP No. 22219 of 2025 Land Acquisition Act and other applicable statutory provisions. (iii) If the respondents propose to utilize any portion of the petitioner’s property for public purposes, they shall initiate appropriate proceedings strictly in accordance with the law, including the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and only upon issuance of requisite notifications, completion of acquisition formalities, and payment of lawful compensation as mandated by law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE DL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16