- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:197 WP No. 103254 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.103254 OF 2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI. ABHAY KRISHNARAO YALAGI AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. CTS NO. 1970, KADOLKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590 006. …PETITIONER (BY MISS. DHANASHREE PAWASHE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHREEVATSA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER CITY CORPORATION OF BELAGAVI, AND MEMBER DISTRICT LEVEL TASK FORCE, SUBHASH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 001. 2. THE HESCOM LTD., (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) NAVNAGAR, HUBBALLI- 580 023. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY), M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI-590 001. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.14 10:53:19 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:197 WP No. 103254 of 2017 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CITY OF BELAGAVI-590 001. 6. THE BELAGAVI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 001. 7. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY) M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHUSHAN B.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B.S.KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. M.A.HULYAL, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R7; NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO DESIST FROM DEMOLISHING THE CONSTRUCTION, BUILDINGS OF THE PETITIONER SITUATED AT CTS.NO.1970/A, KADOLKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI AND DISPOSSESSING THE PETITIONER EXCEPT BY TAKING RECOURSE TO LAW BY ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:197 WP No. 103254 of 2017 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from demolishing the structures standing on the petitioner's property bearing CTS No.1970/A, Kadolkar Galli, Belagavi and from dispossessing the petitioner except by taking recourse to law by acquisition in accordance with law. 2. Brief facts; The petitioner claims to be absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property situated at Kadolkar Galli Belagavi, where the commercial building of considerable age was standing. Apprehending imminent demolition and dispossession, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking protection. This Court on 18.04.2017, passed the following order: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, petitioner is facing threat of dispossession from respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submit, respondent No.1 is not demolishing the building belonging to the petitioner bearing CTS No.1970/A - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:197 WP No. 103254 of 2017 situated at Kadolkar Galli, Belagavi. His submission is placed on record. Shri Bhushan B.Kulkarni, learned counsel, undertakes to file vakalat for respondent No.6 and is granted two weeks time to file vakalath and statement of objections. Notice issued to other respondents are awaited. Hence, list after service of notice on all the respondent.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have no authority to demolish or dispossess the petitioner without following a due process of law, without acquisition and payment of compensation. It is submitted that no proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act or the Municipalities Act have been initiated, and that the marking of the petitioner’s property for road widening without issuing notice is illegal and arbitrary. 4. The respondent/State has filed a statement of objections denying issuance of any threat of illegal demolition or forcible acquisition. It is submitted that the road widening of Kadolkar Galli, Belagavi, was undertaken pursuant to the demands of the residents and shopkeepers due to severe traffic congestion, and that all other residents - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:197 WP No. 103254 of 2017 voluntarily surrendered portions of their land free of cost. The respondents merely facilitated the removal of debris. The petitioner alone did not consent and therefore, his building has not been touched and remained intact. The road widening work has been completed and infrastructure has improved, traffic congestion has reduced and commercial value of the property has increased. It is stated that there has been no forcible dispossession or illegal demolition by the authorities. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and having regard to the categorical stand taken by respondent No.1/Corporation before this Court on 18.04.2017, as well as the statement of objections filed by respondent No.7/State, it is evident that the petitioner’s building has not been demolished and that no forcible dispossession has taken place. 6. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no further orders are required in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:197 WP No. 103254 of 2017 this writ petition. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall not demolish or dispossess the petitioner from the subject property except by following due process of law, if necessity arises in future. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Jayant S/o Amrutarao Hasbe and others vs The Commissioner, City Corporation of Belagavi and Others in W.P.No.109711 of 2015 and other connected matter, disposed of on 23.09.2016 and to contend that similarly placed persons/petitioners, had approached this Court and this Court has held at para Nos.12, 13 and 14 as under: “12. In the matters where the Regional Commissioner gives a finding that any portion of the private land is being used for the road-widening purpose, owners of such lands have to be compensated without any loss of time. The respondents shall have two options in the matter. They shall elect one of the two options indicated herein below: (i) The Government of Karnataka shall immediately resort to the acquisition of lands under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:197 WP No. 103254 of 2017 and Re-settlement Act, 2013. All the acquisition proceedings, including the passing of award and disbursement of the compensation, shall be completed within six months from the date of passing of the order by the Regional Commissioner holding that a particular private property is used up for and in the course of the road-widening. (ii) If the above course is not resorted to by the Government of Karnataka for whatever reason, then the Regional Commissioner shall, within one month from the date of the time granted for complying with the above direction, pass an order determining the damages/compensation. If the quantification of the compensation-amount is not acceptable to any of the parties, they shall have the liberty of challenging the same before the competent civil court. 13. It is further made clear that whether the authorities resort to the route of compulsory acquisition of land or pass order quantifying the damages/compensation, it shall also be open to the authorities to negotiate with the property-losers by offering an alternative property to them in lieu of cashcompensation. It shall also be open to the displaced persons to seek the benefits due under National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 and also under schemes such as the Ashraya Scheme, etc. in the cases where they are applicable. 14. The Regional Commissioner shall dispose of the anticipated petitions in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of ten weeks from the date of filing of anticipated petitions. Further, to safeguard the interests of the petitioners between today, the date of the disposal of these petitions and the date of the disposal of their anticipated petitions before the Regional Commissioner, I direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the properties in question or demolish any structures standing thereon for a period of 12 weeks.” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:197 WP No. 103254 of 2017 8. With the above observation and liberty to the respondent to proceed strictly by following the due process of law in accordance with law, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AM/- Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26