- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2209 WP No. 108599 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.108599 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: DHARMAVEER S/O. SANNABASAPPA MARIBASAPPANAVAR, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANGALORE VILLAGE, TQ. KUKANOOR, DISTRICT. KOPPAL-583231. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY IT’S SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORK. M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583232. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583231. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583231. 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYT KUKANOOR, KUKANOOR TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583231. 6. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MANGALORE VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, TQ. KUKNUR, DIST. KOPPAL-583232. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. BHUSHAN B.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6) MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.20 11:35:27 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2209 WP No. 108599 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 02.09.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.6 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.SAM.TA.PAM.KU/GRA.PAM/C.R-60(24-25)/2025-26/449 DATED 10.10.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 VIDE ANNEXURE-G1 AND ALSO TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO INITIATE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS AND PASS AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION IN TERMS OF JOINT SURVEY REPORT BEARING NO.YM/BHOOSANI YA/ITARE/E- 940110 DATED 16.12.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has called in question the endorsements dated 02.09.2025 and 10.10.2025 issued by respondent Nos.5 and 6 – authorities (Annexures-G and G1), whereby the respondents have denied the very fact of demolition of the petitioner’s house/shop, despite the Court-directed joint survey conclusively establishing such demolition, and have consequently refused to initiate acquisition proceedings or grant compensation for the property demolished for road widening. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2209 WP No. 108599 of 2025 2. Brief facts: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession of a residential-cum-commercial house property bearing Mangalore Grama Panchayat No.449/1, which was purchased by his father under a registered sale deed dated 03.05.1967, and thereafter, the petitioner’s name has been duly entered and continued in the property records. The respondents issued a notice alleging encroachment to an extent of 2 feet for the purpose of road widening without conducting a proper survey. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.106523 of 2023, wherein this Court, by order dated 03.07.2024 directed the respondents not to proceed with the road widening unless a proper survey was conducted and compensation was ensured. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents conducted a faulty survey and proceeded to demolish a portion of the petitioner’s house/shop on 28.08.2024. The petitioner, therefore, again approached - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2209 WP No. 108599 of 2025 this Court by filing W.P.No.105669/2024, which was allowed by order dated 20.11.2024, directing a joint survey by the ADLR after due notice and reserving liberty to the petitioner to claim damages. Pursuant thereto, a joint survey was conducted and a report was submitted (Annexure-F), which categorically establishes that (a) the total built-up area of the house tallies with the measurements mentioned in the title deed, and (b) an extent of 11-6/9 salagaja, approximately 105 sq. ft., of the petitioner’s house has been demolished. It is the case of the petitioner that, despite the joint survey report, the respondents issued the impugned endorsements dated 02.09.2025 and 10.10.2025, falsely stating that no demolition had taken place and alleging encroachment by the petitioner, thereby denying compensation and acquisition benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the demolition was carried out without initiating - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2209 WP No. 108599 of 2025 acquisition proceedings, without following due process, and in violation of the earlier orders of this Court, as the Court-directed joint survey report conclusively establishes the demolition and quantifies the extent demolished. It is submitted that the impugned endorsements (Annexures-G and G1) are contrary to record, arbitrary and issued only to evade the payment of compensation. It is further contended that the petitioner has lost not only a portion of his house but also his livelihood, as a cloth shop was being run in the demolished portion. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 to 6-panchayat submits that no demolition has taken place and the petitioner's house has not been demolished and that in fact, the petitioner itself has encroached upon the road. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2209 WP No. 108599 of 2025 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. The joint survey report (Annexure-F), conducted pursuant to the specific direction of this Court, clearly discloses that an extent of 11-6/9 salagaja (105 square feet) of the petitioner’s house has been demolished. The said report also establishes that the measurements of the property are inconsonance with the registered sale deed and that the demolition occurred within the petitioner’s titled property. 7. Once the joint survey report quantified the demolished portion, the respondents could not have brushed aside the same by issuing a bald endorsement denying the demolition. The impugned endorsement (Annexures-G and G1) issued by the respondents No.5 and 6 are not only contrary to joint survey (Annexure-F), but also contrary to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2209 WP No. 108599 of 2025 earlier orders passed by this Court (supra) and the impugned action on the part of respondents- authorities is ex-facie, arbitrary and unsustainable. The demolition of the residential/commercial property of the petitioner without initiating acquisition proceedings or paying compensation amounts to deprivation of property and livelihood and is violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The plea of encroachment is rendered untenable in view of the joint survey report (Annexure-F). Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned endorsement, is unsustainable in law and pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned endorsements dated 02.09.2025 and 10.10.2025 issued by respondents No.5 and 6 (Annexure-G and G1), are hereby quashed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2209 WP No. 108599 of 2025 iii. The respondents are directed to initiate appropriate acquisition proceedings in respect of the demolished portion of the petitioner's property, if not already initiated and to determine and pay compensation strictly in accordance with the joint survey report (Annexure-F). iv. The entire exercise of acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation, shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AM/- Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10