- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41522 WP No. 11758 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11758 OF 2017 (LB-UC) BETWEEN: K.G. MAHESHWARAPPA S/O LATE GANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT KANIVEHALLI VILLAGE, LAKYA HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGAMESH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LAKYA GRAMAPANCHAYATH CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577168. 2. THE PRESIDENT LAKYA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577168. 3. SRI. K.M. KANTHARAJ GRAMAPANCHAYATH MEMBER AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, KANIVEHALLI, LAKYA POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577168 4. SRI. K.V. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, GRAMAPANCHAYATH MEMBER Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41522 WP No. 11758 of 2017 KYATANABEEDU, LAKYA POST CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577168. 5. EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYTH, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101. 6. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, CHIKKAMGALUR DISTRICT-577101. 7. SMT. PUSHPA W/O MOHANRAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O KANIVEHALLI, LAKYA HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577168. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2, 5 AND 6; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.3, 4 AND 7) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1, 5 AND 6 TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.6 TO COMPLY THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY DATED 04.06.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 6 TO REMOVE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE PUBLIC ROAD PUT UP BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41522 WP No. 11758 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: "a) Direct the Respondent No: 1,5 & 6 to consider the claim of the petitioner and direct the Respondent No: 6 to comply the directions issued by the Secretary dated 04-06- 2014 vide Annexure-K and direct the Respondent No: 1 to 6 to remove the existing structure on the public road put up by the 7th Respondent. b) Direct the appointment of a Jurisdictional Court Commissioner to investigate and prepare a report regarding the actual existence and position of the public road in Sy No: 21 of Kanivehalli Village, Lakya Hobli, Chikkamagalur Taluk and place it before this Hon'ble court." 2. (i) The petitioner claims that he is the owner of survey No.23/2 measuring 1 acre 8 guntas out of 3 acre 38 guntas of Kanivehalli Village, Lakya Hobli, Chikkamagalur Taluk. He claims that he has an approach road through survey No.21 to reach his land and this approach road is in existence from time immemorial and is recorded in the village map. (ii) He claims that the Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 19.03.1992 and had authorized the village Panchayath of Kanivehalli to form a layout in survey No.21 for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41522 WP No. 11758 of 2017 allotment under the Ashraya Yojane. Accordingly, the Panchayath formed a layout and formed 55 sites in survey No.21 of Kanivehalli and distributed them to 48 homeless individuals. He claims that 7 sites are still not allotted to anyone. (iii) He contends that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 had illegally formed a site on the existing public pathway after the layout plan was approved and have allotted the illegal site in favour of the respondent No.7. Later, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have passed a resolution and effected Khatha in respect of the illegal site in favour of the respondent No.7. The road, over which, the illegal site was formed was the only approach for the petitioner to access his property and is now blocked. Though the petitioner had approached the officials of the Department of Panchayath Raj, no action was taken. (iv) The Secretary of the Department of Panchayath Raj issued a direction to respondent No.6 to take steps and consider the request of the petitioner. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 did not take any steps. Therefore, the petitioner approached the respondents and requested them to clear the public road to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41522 WP No. 11758 of 2017 reach his land and cultivate it. The respondents allegedly have not taken any steps to clear the encroachment on the public road. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in WP No.48730/2014 for a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider his representation. (v) This Court in terms of an order dated 05.01.2016, directed the respondent No.1 to consider his representation and remove the construction put up on the public pathway and to maintain it as a public road. He contends that despite the direction, the other official respondents did not take any action, which compelled him to file CCC (CIVIL) No.691/2016. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent No.1 to escape from the contempt proceedings forcibly levelled the land bearing survey No.23 and 23/1, which belongs to the railway department and to a person named Sri.Ranganatha and a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner for forming an alternate road. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 filed a memo in the contempt petition stating that an alternative 8 feet wide road is formed to enable the petitioner to reach his land. Therefore, this Court closed the contempt proceedings. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41522 WP No. 11758 of 2017 (vi) He claims that after the contempt proceeding was closed, the owner of the land bearing No.23/1 closed the road formed on his land and even the railway authorities have erected barricades on their land, preventing the petitioner from using the road. Therefore, the petitioner is now deprived of access to reach his property and hence, he has approached this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the village map, a two dotted pathway ran through survey No.21 and passed by the side of survey No.23. He contends that this is the only road available to the petitioner to reach his property. He contends when the Panchayath formed a layout in survey No.21, it had set apart a 30 feet road through survey No.21, which was the access to the land of the petitioner in survey No.23 between site No.11 and 12. He contends that the respondents have formed an unauthorised site between site No.11 and 12 and have allotted the said site to the respondent No.7, who has put up a temporary construction and has blocked the petitioner from entering his property. He therefore submits that suitable directions be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41522 WP No. 11758 of 2017 issued to the respondents to immediately remove the construction put up by the respondent No.7. 4. (i) The writ petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who have filed a statement of objections contending that survey No.21 of Kanivehalli belongs to the State Government and as per the records, there is no public road as claimed by the petitioner in survey No.21. It is admitted that as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the Panchayath had formed a layout and distributed the sites to the homeless people. (ii) It has also admitted that it had passed a resolution to effect the khatha in favour of the respondent No.7 in respect of a house constructed in a vacant plot. However, it has denied that the road running through survey No.21 was the only approach road for the petitioner to access his property bearing survey No.23 of Kanivehalli Village. It has contended that the petitioner made a representation to the respondents to remove the illegal construction on the public road by the respondent No.7 and it has denied that it did not take any action on the representation. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41522 WP No. 11758 of 2017 (iii) It claimed that though the petitioner had alternative roads to reach his property, he was unnecessarily filing representations to the respondents. It claimed that during the contempt proceedings, the Court noticed an endorsement issued by the respondents where it was stated that an alternate road was formed to enable the petitioner to reach his land. It is contended that this endorsement is not challenged by the petitioner. Instead, he has submitted a representation stating that the respondents have not considered his representation. (iv) He claims that the executive officer, Taluk Panchayath, based on the letter of the chief executive officer, had visited the spot and submitted a report. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner is not maintainable. It is also claimed that the petitioner is claiming a civil right over a road to access his property and since disputed questions of fact are involved, the petitioner has to approach the civil Court and hence, the petition is not maintainable. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 reiterated the above submissions and submitted that the respondents have formed a road through the railway land as - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41522 WP No. 11758 of 2017 well as survey No.23/1 for the usage of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot compel the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to remove the structures put up by the respondent No.7. 6. A perusal of Annexure-B, which is the village map, shows that a two-dotted line ran through survey No.21 and passed alongside survey No.23, leading to Kanuvehalli. The said pathway thereafter leads from the village towards Kyatanabeedu. The respondent No.1 has filed a memo enclosing therewith a report of the respondent No.1, wherein he has claimed that there is no road running through survey No.21. However, he has enclosed along with the memo a hissa survey of survey No.21, which shows that a two-dotted line runs from Devagondanahalli and leads towards Kyatanabeedu. Therefore, it is more than evident that a public pathway ran through survey No.21 and passed alongside survey No.23. The petitioner as well as the respondent No.1 have placed on record the layout plan of sites formed in survey No.21 under the Ashraya Yojane, which shows that between site Nos.11 and 12, there is a road, which apparently leads to survey No.23. It is between these two sites that the respondent No.7 is allotted a site. This site is not approved in the layout. It therefore - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41522 WP No. 11758 of 2017 appears that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have unlawfully allotted this site to the respondent No.7 and have unlawfully entered the khatha of the said site in the name of the respondent No.7. This act of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is unbecoming and is a clear attempt at misusing their official powers. The claim of the petitioner that except for the pathway, there is no other road to reach his property cannot be disbelieved. Even otherwise when the petitioner had the benefit of a pre-existing road through survey No.21, he is entitled to a free passage through the road formed between site Nos.11 and 12. The respondent No.1 has claimed that it had formed an alternate road through the land belonging to the railways and the land in survey No.23/2. However, it has claimed that the owner of survey No.23/2 has closed the road. If that be so, it is clear that the petitioner has no way to reach his property in survey No.23. 7. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should not be exposed to any further litigation in this regard and the obstruction laid by the respondent No.7 in view of an illegal site granted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 between site Nos.11 and 12. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41522 WP No. 11758 of 2017 Consequently, this petition is allowed. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to forthwith remove the construction put up by the respondent No.7 between site Nos.11 and 12 and also cancel the khatha made out in the name of the respondent No.7. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall take steps to allot an alternate site to the respondent No.7 in accordance with law and thereafter, enter her name in the khatha register concerning the alternate site allotted to her. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48