Sri. M Sathish Kumar v. The State of Karnataka

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:5784 WP(No.(3208(of(2025 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( NDDATED(THIS(THE(2 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(3208(OF(2025((LA-RES) BETWEEN:(

1., SRI.,M.,SATHISH,KUMAR,, AGED,ABOUT,62,YEARS,, S/O,LATE,P.,MAHALINGAPPA,,

2., MR.,SHANKAR,, AGED,ABOUT,46,YEARS,, S/O,LATE,P.,MAHALINGAPPA,,

3., C.,MADHUKAR,, AGED,ABOUT,46,YEARS,, S/O,LATE,P.,CHAMMARASAPPA,, ALL,ARE,R/AT,NO.1463,, Digitallytisigned FORT,STREET,,VIJAYAPURA,,, by0VIJAYA0P Location: DEVANAHALLI,,TALUK,, HIGH0COURT OF BENGALURU,RURAL,DISTRICT,-562135, KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS, (BY,SRI.,C,M,NAGABUSHANA.,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA,, DEPARTMENT,OF,PUBLIC,WORKS,DEPARTMENT,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,, M.,S.,BUILDING,,AMBEDKAR,VEEDHI,ROAD,, BENGALURU,-560001., e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:5784 WP(No.(3208(of(2025

2., CHIEF,ENGINEER,, PUBLIC,WORKS,DEPARTMENT,, PWD,ANNEX,BUILDING,, SHESHADRI,ROAD,,NEAR,K.,R.,CIRCLE,, AMBEDKAR,VEEDHI,, BENGALURU,-560001.,

3., EXECUTIVE,ENGINEER,, PUBLIC,WORKS,DEPARTMENT,, PWD,ANNEX,BUILDING,,, SHESHADRI,ROAD,,NEAR,K.,R.,CIRCLE,, AMBEDKAR,VEEDHI,, BENGALURU,-560001., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,HARISHA,A.S.,,AGA), , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, DIRECTION, RESTRAINING, THE, RESPONDENTS, FROM, INTERFERING, WITH, THE, PETITIONER'S, 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,PROPERTY,,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,S,SUNIL,DUTT,YADAV

ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for issuance of writ and necessary direction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property and have also sought for an order of restraint against the respondents from demolishing the structure of the petitioners' property, more fully described in the schedule. The petitioners have also sought for an appropriate writ against the respondents restraining them from utilising the property of the petitioners without following due process of law.

¶2It is the case of the petitioners that they are absolute owners of the scheduled property and they have been enjoying all rights as owners since execution of sale deed dated 30.01.2015. It is further submitted that the Vijayapura Town Municipality has registered katha in the name of the petitioners and that the property is assessed to tax. It is further asserted that the petitioners have obtained license from the Deputy Commissioner,

Bangalore Rural for exhibiting cinemas in the theatre situated in the scheduled property.

¶3It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent authorities are seeking to widen the road and in that process, there is an apprehension of the petitioners that the respondent authorities may seek to utilise the property of the petitioners without acquisition or following due process of law. It is further submitted that markings have been made on the property which could indicate intention of the respondents.

¶4Learned Additional Government Advocate admits that the authorities are also of the view that there may be some encroachment of the right of way.

¶5It must be noticed that if it is the case of the revenue authorities that there is encroachment by the petitioners of the right of way, which enquiry must be done under the provisions of Municipalities Act or under applicable law. Needless to state, any allegation or

assertion by the respondents regarding encroachment of public property by the petitioners would require holding of a duly constituted enquiry as per applicable law, with notice to the petitioners. Such enquiry must be as per the prescription under the applicable statutes and once such enquiry is made, the respondent-State would be in a position to ascertain whether in-effect there has been any encroachment.

¶6If it is the private property of the petitioners that is required for the purpose of road widening, needless to state, the interference in the property rights can be made only by due process of law i.e., by acquisition under the applicable legislations.

¶7Without following the procedures prescribed above, question of interfering with the petitioners' property would not arise. Accordingly, petition is disposed of. The respondent authorities are restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioners' property

except as per procedure stipulated under law and by resort to procedure referred to above.

¶8All contentions are kept open. Needless to state, the respondent - State is at liberty to resort to the procedures referred to above. Accordingly, petition is disposed of. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR