THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER vs DHARMAVEER S/O SANNABASAPPA MARBASAPPANAVAR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
752-DB
of 2026
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100261 o
CNR: KAHC0200704820
026
BENCH
IN THE HIGH CO
OURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD B
ND
THE 22 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 202
26
DATED THIS
PRESENT
A
THE HON'BL
LE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
I
THE HON'B
BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
PEAL NO.100261 OF 2026 (LB-RES)
WRIT APP
BETWEEN:
THE PANCHAYA
MANGALORE V
TQ: KUKNUR, D
AT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
VILLAGE PANCHAYATH,
DIST: KOPPAL-583232.
…APP
AJ MATHAPATHI, ADVOCATE)
ELLANT
(BY SRI.BASAVARA
AND:
1. DHARMAVEER
S/O. SANNABA
AGE: 52 YEARS
R/O. MANGALO
TQ: KUKANOO
2. THE STATE OF
BY ITS SECRET
DEPARTMENT O
M.S BUILDING
BENGALURU-5
3. THE DEPUTY C
KOPPAL DISTR
KOPPAL-58323
ASAPPA MARIBASAPPANAVAR,
Digitally signed by
PRATIBHA M
PATIL
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.10.15
14:30:05 +0530
S, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ORE VILLAGE,
R, DIST: KOPPAL-583231.
KARNATAKA
TARY,
OF PUBLIC WORK,
, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
60001.
COMMISSIONER
RICT,
32.
- 2 -
752-DB
of 2026
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100261 o
CNR: KAHC0200704820
026
4. THE CHIEF EXE
ZILLA PANCHA
KOPPAL DISTR
KOPPAL-58323
5. THE ASSISTAN
ZILLA PANCHA
KOPPAL DISTR
KOPPAL-58323
6. THE EXECUTIV
TALUKA PANCH
KUKANOOR, KU
KOPPAL DISTR
ECUTIVE OFFICER
AYAT,
RICT,
31.
NT EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AYAT,
RICT,
31.
VE OFFICER
HAYAT,
UKANOOR TALUK,
RICT-583231.
…RESPON
NDENTS
(BY SRI.SANTOSH
SRI.RAKESH M
SRI.BHUSHAN
THIS WRIT
B.MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
.BILKI, AGA FOR R2 AND R3;
B.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R
R6)
APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
N 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLO
OW THE
WRIT APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.0
02.2026
PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, IN W
WP NO.
108599/2025; AND
D ETC.
THIS WRIT A
APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THI
IS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DE
ELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE
E MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BL
LE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
- 3 -
752-DB
of 2026
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100261 o
CNR: KAHC0200704820
026
ORAL JUDGMENT
LE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
(PER: HON'BL
A )
The appella
ant/Panchayath Development Offic
cer of
Mangalore Grama
Panchayath, Koppal District, is befo
ore the
Court calling in que
estion an order of the learned Single J
udge in
Writ Petition No.10
8599/2025 disposed on 12.02.2026.
2. Heard
the learned counsel Sri. Ba
savaraj
Mathapathi appea
aring for the appellant, learned c
counsel
Sri. Santosh B. M
Malligawad appearing for respondent
t No.1,
learned Additional
Government Advocate Sri. Rakesh M
M. Bilki
appearing for respo
ondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned c
counsel
Sri. Bhushan B. Kul
lkarni appearing for respondent Nos.4
to 6.
3. The pa
rties to the appeal would be referred
d to as
per their ranking in
n the writ petition.
4. Facts in
n brief, germane, are as follows:
4.1 The pe
etitioner purchases the subject p
roperty
bearing No.449/1
in terms of a registered sale deed
d dated
03.05.1967. The p
petitioner claims to be in possession
of the
said property, has
s constructed a shop and is runn
ing his
- 4 -
752-DB
of 2026
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100261 o
CNR: KAHC0200704820
026
notice
business in the sa
aid property, and on 22.10.2023, a
comes to be iss
ued for removal of the alleged
2 feet
encroachment for t
the purpose of road widening. The pe
etitioner
rushes to this Cour
rt in Writ Petition No.106523 of 2023,
, where
the learned Single
Judge disposes of the Writ Petition
by the
following order on t
the following reasons:
ed
“4. On
notices issued
noticed that, t
notice which i
that, the resp
widening proje
respondents cl
existing prope
the guidelines
centre of road
2 feet. Wheth
existing proper
a new street a
of survey. It is
protection to a
respondent to
property and
Court also mad
individual notic
owners. This o
No.5 for the
undertaken th
done and th
respondent No
there is an enc
perusal of the content of the impugne
d by respondent No.5, this Court ha
the respondent-authority has issued a fin
as
al
es
ad
he
he
ne
he
s found in two folds; the notice indicate
pondent No.5 intends to undertake roa
ect. Therefore, in terms of road width, th
laim that, from the centre of the road, th
rties owned by the petitioners contraven
to maintain minimum distance from th
. There is an encroachment to an extent
her the petitioners have encroached o
rties on account of road widening, require
alignment can be ascertained only by wa
of
or
es
ay
ng
th
5
s in this context, this Court while grantin
all the petitioners issued direction to the 5
he
his
o carryout a survey and measure th
identify the encroachment if any. Th
de clear that, before survey is undertake
ces have to be issued to all the concerne
order is dated 27.10.2022. The responde
n,
ed
nt
ot
reasons best known to him, has no
he survey till this date. Unless survey
he encroachments are ascertained, th
is
he
at,
o.5 cannot proceed on an assumption tha
croachment by the petitioners.
he
For the
following:
foregoing reasons, this Court passes th
- 5 -
752-DB
of 2026
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100261 o
CNR: KAHC0200704820
026
ORDER
(i) The w
(ii) The
precip
notice
These
is don
(iii) If the
writ petition is disposed of;
respondent No.5 shall not further
pitate by implementing impugned final
e issued as per Annexures-U to U17.
e final notices stand deferred till survey
ne and encroachment is ascertained.
properties owned by the petitioners are
olished, the extent of demolished portion
demo
shall
surve
the ow
in tha
also be ascertained by the concerned
yor, while carrying out survey to enable
wners to seek appropriate compensation
at regard.”
This learned Single
Judge clearly indicated that until a su
urvey is
conducted, encroa
achment is ascertained, no further
r steps
would be taken.
4.2 It trans
spires that without conduct of any
survey,
the shop or the
alleged encroached area, the p
roperty
belonging to the
petitioner comes to be demolished
by the
Grama Panchayat.
The petitioner rushes to this Court a
again in
Writ Petition No.10
05669 of 2024 calling in question th
he said
action of demolitio
on without following due process o
of law,
where the learned
d Single Judge, on the following re
easons,
passes the following
g order:
- 6 -
752-DB
of 2026
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100261 o
CNR: KAHC0200704820
026
d
e
a
5
“9. It
counsel for the
Karnataka Pan
report came
reporting the
Thereafter on
petitioner callin
said encroachm
on 20.08.202
21.08.2024 on
other people o
and the unau
thereafter re
necessary doc
property which
belonging to
were furnished
alternative ha
law for remo
property in acc
is further contended by the learned
e respondent that as per section 72 of the
chayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Act, 1993, a
to be submitted by respondent No.5
encroachment made by the petitioner
14.08.2024 a notice was caused to the
ng for objections if any for removal of the
ment. Thereafter a meeting was conveyed
24 which came to be postponed to
n which day the petitioner along with five
objected to the said survey the demolition
.
e
e
d
o
e
n
uthorized construction. The respondent
equested the petitioner to produce
cuments to show their right over the
t
e
e
h has been encroached over the guttar
r
s
the respondents. Since no documents
th
d, the 5 respondent left with no other
r
h
e
d proceeded further in accordance with
oval of the encroached portion of the
cordance with the provisions of the Act.
10. It is
notices and re
claim is furni
respondents
encroachment
the circumstan
or arbitrarine
petitioner of a
were issued in
is followed as p
s further submitted that despite severa
l
e
e
e
minders, no documents in support of the
ished by the petitioner. Therefore the
proceeded further to clear the
after several notices were issued. Under
nces he contends that there is no illegality
r
y
e
ss or violation of any rights of the
alleged non issuing of notice, as notices
n accordance with law and the procedure
s
e
per the prescribed guidelines.
11. Ha
petitioner and
apparently it is
to the order
hereinabove a
said notice b
claiming his rig
of the petitio
owner of the p
any right or cla
land belonging
aving heard the learned counsel for the
e
the learned counsel for the respondents
s seen that notices were issued pursuant
,
t
d
e
passed in the writ petition mentioned
and the petitioner had responded to the
by way of filing objections statement
t
e
e
e
e
ght over the property. It is the grievance
ner that the petitioner is the absolute
property and the respondent does no have
aim and there is no encroachment on the
g to the respondents.
- 7 -
752-DB
of 2026
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100261 o
CNR: KAHC0200704820
026
d
y
e
12. Be
by the petition
the responde
petitioner has
conducted an
submitting of
proceeded furt
that despite
statement of o
same is not c
respondents h
the property b
that as it may, the survey was conducted
ner through a private surveyor, so also by
nts by the Government agency. The
s participated in the survey that was
s
n
e
d present and thereafter due to non
the documents, the respondents have
ther. It is the grievance of he petitioner
r
e
e
e
the petitioner having produced the
objection statement to the demolition, the
considered and in a hurried manner the
ave demolished the residential portion of
elonging to the petitioner.
f
13. The
before this Co
portion of t
demolished or
whether portio
rightfully dem
law by the re
petitioner is t
property whic
have any righ
same is illeg
authorities. Th
representation
12.09.2024, vi
e photographs have not been produced
ourt by both the parties to establish the
d
e
y
o
he property demolished is rightfully
r not. The question now arises as to
on of the property which is demolished is
s
olished by following the due process of
espondent authorities and whether the
the lawful owner of the portion of the
f
e
e
d
e
h is demolished and whether he would
t over the said portion and whether the
gally demolished by the respondent
he present petition is filed to consider the
t
e
d
submitted by the petitioner dated
ide Annexures-N, N1, N2 and N3.
14. The
would have to
the responden
Learned couns
said represent
with law if reas
representation so filed by the petitioner
be considered in accordance with law by
nt authorities, which has not been done
r
y
.
e
e
sel for the respondents submits that the
tation would be considered in accordance
sonable time is granted.
15. In v
appropriate to
pass the follow
view of the above, this Court deems it
o dispose of this petition. Accordingly, I
wing:
t
I
ORDER
i) Th
ii) A
respondent
representa
he petition is partly allowed.
writ of mandamus is issued directing
ts No.2 to 6 to consider the
tion of the petitioner dated
- 8 -
752-DB
of 2026
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100261 o
CNR: KAHC0200704820
026
12.09.2024
and N3 wit
date of rec
4 produced at Annexure-N, N1, N2
thin a period of four weeks from the
ceipt of copy of this order.
iii) Re
joint surve
espondents No.2 to 6 shall conduct a
y involving the petitioner.
espondent No.1 shall direct the
Director Land Records to conduct a
iv) Re
Assistant D
survey by
advance a
demolished
bearing No
Panchayat,
furnish a c
issuing a notice to the petitioner in
and ascertain the encroached and
d portion of the house property
o.449/1 of Mangalore Village Gram
, Mangalore of Kukanur Taluk and
opy of the same to the petitioner.
he petitioner is at liberty to
in the said survey to be conducted
LR, which shall be conducted within 8
m the date of receipt of a copy of this
v) Th
participate
by the ADL
weeks from
order and f
furnish a copy of it to the petitioner.
vi) Li
aggrieved
submitted
corporation
law.
vii) No
by provid
petitioner
shall proce
berty is reserved to the petitioner if
by the survey and the report
to claim any damages from the
n if so advised, in accordance with
otice shall be issued to the petitioner
ing one week’s time and if the
does not participate, respondents
eed further in accordance with law.”
The property was
already demolished by then is what
can be
gathered from wha
at is captured in the order passed in t
the writ
petition also. The
petition comes to be partly allowed,
, and a
mandamus
writ of
is issued directing respondent Nos.2
to 6 to
consider the repres
sentation and conduct a joint survey
y in the
presence of the pe
etitioner, along with several other dire
ections.
These directions
were again not complied with,
is the
allegation.
- 9 -
752-DB
of 2026
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100261 o
CNR: KAHC0200704820
026
again in
4.3 The pet
titioner then approaches this Court a
Writ Petition No.10
08599/2025, the third in line. The
learned
Single Judge allows
s the petition by the order dated 12.02
2.2026,
which reads as follo
ows:
“Pursuan
and a repor
categorically e
of the house ta
the title deed
approximately
been demolish
despite the jo
the impugned
10.10.2025, fa
place and al
thereby denyin
nt thereto, a joint survey was conducte
rt was submitted (Annexure-F), whic
establishes that (a) the total built-up are
ed
ch
ea
allies with the measurements mentioned
in
a,
as
at,
, and (b) an extent of 11-6/9 salagaj
105 sq. ft., of the petitioner’s house ha
hed. It is the case of the petitioner tha
int survey report, the respondents issue
d endorsements dated 02.09.2025 an
alsely stating that no demolition had take
ed
nd
en
er,
leging encroachment by the petitione
ng compensation and acquisition benefits.
3. Learned co
demolition was
proceedings,
violation of the
directed joint
demolition and
submitted that
G and G1) are
only to evade
contended tha
of his house b
being run in th
ounsel for the petitioner submits that th
he
on
s carried out without initiating acquisitio
without following due process, and
e earlier orders of this Court, as the Cour
in
rt-
he
survey report conclusively establishes th
d quantifies the extent demolished. It
t the impugned endorsements (Annexure
e contrary to record, arbitrary and issue
is
s-
ed
the payment of compensation. It is furthe
t the petitioner has lost not only a portio
but also his livelihood, as a cloth shop wa
er
on
as
he demolished portion.
4. Per contra
respondents
demolition has
has not been d
itself has encro
, the learned counsel appearing for th
No.3 to 6-panchayat submits that n
s taken place and the petitioner's hous
demolished and that in fact, the petitione
oached upon the road.
he
no
se
er
5. This Cou
submissions an
rt has carefully considered the riv
nd perused the material on record.
val
- 10 -
752-DB
of 2026
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100261 o
CNR: KAHC0200704820
026
ed
rly
6. The joint
pursuant to th
discloses that
feet) of the pe
said report als
the property a
deed and th
petitioner’s titl
survey report (Annexure-F), conducte
he specific direction of this Court, clear
an extent of 11-6/9 salagaja (105 squa
etitioner’s house has been demolished. Th
re
he
so establishes that the measurements
are inconsonance with the registered sa
of
le
he
at the demolition occurred within th
ed property.
7. Once the
demolished po
brushed aside
denying the
(Annexures-G
and 6 are not o
but also contr
Court (supra)
respondents-a
unsustainable.
commercial pr
acquisition pro
to deprivation
of Article 300A
encroachment
survey report
the considered
unsustainable
e joint survey report quantified th
ortion, the respondents could not hav
he
ve
the same by issuing a bald endorseme
demolition. The impugned endorseme
nt
nt
.5
F),
his
and G1) issued by the respondents No
only contrary to joint survey (Annexure-F
rary to the earlier orders passed by th
and the impugned action on the part
uthorities is ex-facie, arbitrary an
The demolition of the residentia
roperty of the petitioner without initiatin
oceedings or paying compensation amoun
of
nd
al/
ng
ts
ve
of property and livelihood and is violativ
A of the Constitution of India. The plea
of
nt
is rendered untenable in view of the joi
(Annexure-F). Accordingly, this Court is
d view that the impugned endorsement,
of
is
in law and pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ
ii. The
02.09.20
respond
G1), are
iii. The res
appropr
respect
petitione
and to
strictly
report (A
iv. The enti
and pa
complet
allowed
t petition is .
impugned endorsements dated
025 and 10.10.2025 issued by
ents No.5 and 6 (Annexure-G and
e hereby quashed .
spondents are directed to initiate
iate acquisition proceedings in
of the demolished portion of the
er's property, if not already initiated
determine and pay compensation
in accordance with the joint survey
Annexure-F).
ire exercise of acquisition proceedings
ayment of compensation, shall be
ed within a period of three months
- 11 -
752-DB
of 2026
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100261 o
CNR: KAHC0200704820
026
from the
of this o
e date of the receipt of certified copy
order.”
5. On a cons
spectus of the orders passed by the
learned
Single Judges of th
is Court, which are 3 in number, what
t would
be the unmistaka
ble inference is that the property
of the
petitioner, without
conduct of a joint survey as is obser
rved by
the Court, is demo
lished without any notification of acqu
uisition,
no acquisition pro
oceedings having even been initiate
ed. The
learned Single Jud
dge in the impugned writ petition
in Writ
Petition No.108599
9/2025 holds that the demolition
of the
residential and com
mmercial property of the petitioner w
without
initiating acquisitio
on proceedings amounts to depriva
tion of
property and livelih
hood as obtaining under Article 300A
A of the
Constitution of Ind
ia. The Panchayat Development Offic
cer who
undertook the exe
ercise of demolishing the property
of the
petitioner despite t
the orders quoted hereinabove is now
w before
us in the subject
appeal contending that the learned
Single
Judge could not ha
ave passed the said order on the sco
ore that
the portion of the
property, to an extent of 11-6/9 sa
alagaja,
which is approxim
mately 105 square feet, was an
illegal
encroachment.
- 12 -
752-DB
of 2026
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100261 o
CNR: KAHC0200704820
026
tes that
6. The joint s
survey that is conducted clearly indicat
there is no encroa
chment in the case at hand. The pe
etitioner
has produced the
sale deed pursuant to which the pe
etitioner
entered the prope
erty, which shows that it is 176 sa
alagaja,
which amounts to
1584 square feet, out of which 105
square
feet is the alleged
portion that has been demolished. T
hat the
demolition has take
en place without due process of law
is what
can be discerned fr
rom the orders passed by the learned
d Single
Judges of this Cour
rt, not once but thrice. Therefore, ther
re is no
warrant of interfer
rence with the order that is passed
by the
learned Single J
Judge directing initiation of acq
uisition
proceedings and de
etermination of compensation for the
e act of
the appellant havin
g demolished the property of the petit
tioner.
7. Directing p
payment of compensation alone would
not be
sufficient to rende
r complete justice to the petitioner,
whose
property has bee
en illegally demolished by the Pan
nchayat
Development Office
er in the teeth of the orders of this Co
urt. For
the aforesaid action
n, adequate costs have to be imposed,
, taking
into account the c
conduct of the appellant and the d
damage
caused to a citizen
whose property has been subjected to
o illegal
- 13 -
752-DB
of 2026
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100261 o
CNR: KAHC0200704820
026
g been
demolition, apart
from which the demolition having
carried out without
t even waiting for a joint survey purs
uant to
the orders of this C
Court. Therefore, we deem it approp
riate to
dismiss the appeal
with imposition of exemplary costs up
pon the
Panchayat Develop
ment Officer for having acted contrary
y to the
orders passed by
this Court. The costs being asses
ssed at
₹50,000/- to be pa
id by the appellant-Panchayath Develo
opment
Officer from his poc
cket to the petitioner within an outer
limit of
4 weeks from the d
date of receipt of a copy of this judgme
ent.
Ordered a
accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
KMV
CT:VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9