- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25727 WP No. 32519 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 32519 OF 2024 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHIKKAPAPAMMA W/O LATE B RAMAIAHA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 2. SMT. SUNANDAMMA W/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 3. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 4. M.V BYREGOWDA S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT VADERAMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE, KALLUBALU POST, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU- 560105 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DIWAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560001 Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25727 WP No. 32519 of 2024 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., 3RD FLOOR, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, NEAR OPP. ORION MALL, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, BENGALURU- 560010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; VIDE ORDER DATED 02.06.2026, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FORM AND WIDEN THE ROAD AS PER THE ALREADY EXISTING ROAD FROM MAHANTHALINGAPUR TO KALLUBALU IN PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.89 ON THE WESTERN SIDE AS SHOWN IN THE GREEN COLOUR IN THE SKETCH AS ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.74 EAP 2019 DATED 05.04.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E INSTEAD OF FORMING THE ROAD BY DIVIDING SY.NO.89 AS SHOWN IN RED COLOUR IN SKETCH PASSING IN THE CENTER OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY IN SY.NO.89. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to form and widen the road in Sy.No.89 on its western side as per the already existing - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25727 WP No. 32519 of 2024 road from Mahanthalingapur to Kallubalu village as shown in green colour in the sketch as per Annexure - B issued by respondent No.2, instead of forming the road through the centre of Sy.No.89 as shown in red colour in sketch, thereby dividing the petitioners' property in Sy.No.89 of Kallubalu Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk. 2. (i) The petitioners contend that the land in Sy. No.89 of Kallubalu village was jointly owned and possessed by petitioner No.1 and the husband of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and father of petitioner No.4. They contend that an extent of 12 acres 04 guntas of land in Sy.No.89 of Kallubalu village was proposed for acquisition for widening the road from Harohalli to Tattakere Village. The survey sketch of Sy.No.89 showed that the proposed road alignment was along the western boundary of the property. (ii) The petitioner contends that instead of forming the road as proposed, the respondents are now trying to form the road in the middle of Sy.No.89 of Kallubalu vilalge, as a result of which, the property would be divided into two portions and it would be unsuitable for cultivation or for formation of a layout. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25727 WP No. 32519 of 2024 It is further contended that the Assistant Executive Engineer had issued a letter regarding widening the road from Thattekere via Jigani and had given particulars of the lands proposed to be acquired for the said purpose. They further contend that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had issued a notice bearing No.LA/BSR-3/JMC-01/2020-21 under Section 17(3) of the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964. The said notice is pursuant to the notification issued by the PWD bearing No.PWD74 EAP 2019 dated 05.04.2019 in terms of which, the road classified as 'district main road' passing through Ramanagara, Kanakapura and Anekal Taluks and connecting Kanchugaranahalli in Ramanagara Taluk to Jigani via Harohalli and Uraganadoddi, was proposed for widening. It is further contended that the road classified as 'State Highway No.87' and Anekal Bypass road, passing through Anekal Taluk of Bengaluru District and connecting Banneragatta State Highway No.87 to Besthammanahalli via Jigani and the Anekal Bypass, was also proposed for widening and the lands in question were sought to be acquired for the said purpose.. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25727 WP No. 32519 of 2024 (iii) It is claimed that for the purpose of widening the above road, a portion of land in Sy. No.89 of Kallubalu village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk was acquired. They contend that the Special Land Acquisition Officer addressed a letter to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bengaluru to submit a valuation report in respect of the acquired land to an extent of 29 guntas including 3.25 guntas in Sy. No.89 for the purpose of widening the road from Harohalli to Anekal via Tattekere. The respondent No.2 issued a letter calling upon the Public Information Officer to furnish the details of the land granted in favour of the petitioners as it was classified as 'Government Karab' in column No.9 of RTC and Column No.9 of RTC disclosed that the petitioners were the joint Khata holders in respect of Sy.No.89 measuring 04 acres 11 guntas. (iv) The petitioners contend that respondent No.2 can make use of the existing PWD road situated on the western side of Sy. No.89 and widen the same so as to connect it to the main road. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking the reliefs stated above. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25727 WP No. 32519 of 2024 3. The writ petition is bereft of material particulars. It is not disclosed how, when and under what circumstances the road came to be marked on the western side of the property of the petitioners. Likewise, it is not known when and how the proposed alignment of the road was shifted to the middle of Sy.No.89. Under the circumstances, this Court cannot issue a direction to the respondents to shift the proposed road from the middle portion of Sy. No.89 of Kallubalu Village to its western boundary, as allegedly proposed earlier. Consequently, no direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners. 4. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. It is however open for the petitioners to procure proper and relevant information and thereafter file a fresh petition seeking suitable reliefs in which event, the same would be considered in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17