After 3-Day Removal Notices, Karnataka HC Bars PWD From Acting Against Manvi Shop Tenants Until It Considers Their Objections

In brief

The question

1. Whether the impugned notices could stand where the authority had concluded that there was an encroachment without first conducting an enquiry or considering the petitioners’ objections.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petitions.

It also directed

It directed Respondent No. 2 or another competent authority to consider the petitioners’ objections and, if necessary, conduct a survey in their and the landowner’s presence before proceeding in accordance with law.

Until that decision is made, no precipitative steps may be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the impugned notices.

No order as to costs.

01Facts

The petitioners, who operated businesses as tenants in premises at Manvi, challenged notices issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, on 16/17 September 2026.

pp. 10–16

The notices alleged that they had encroached on part of the road and directed removal of the alleged encroachment within three days.

pp. 10–16

The petitioners had submitted replies to the notices.

pp. 10–16

They sought, among other reliefs, to quash the notices and to have their representations considered; they also requested initiation of land acquisition proceedings under Section 69 of the 2013 Act.

pp. 10–16

The Court noted that the notices reached a conclusion of encroachment without an enquiry or consideration of the petitioners’ objections.

p. 16

02Issues

i.1. Whether the impugned notices could stand where the authority had concluded that there was an encroachment without first conducting an enquiry or considering the petitioners’ objections.

p. 16

ii.2. Whether the authority should verify the alleged encroachment through a survey and hearing before taking steps to evict the petitioners.

pp. 16–17

03Law Applied

The petitions were brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

pp. 2–10

The Court applied the principles of procedural fairness: an authority should consider the affected parties’ objections and, where necessary, ascertain the relevant property boundaries by survey before deciding whether an encroachment exists and taking consequential action.

pp. 16–17

The petitioners invoked Section 69 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, but the Court did not decide or grant relief on that request.

pp. 2–10, 16–17

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 69

04Reasoning

The Court considered the notices’ allegation of encroachment alongside the petitioners’ replies.

pp. 16–17

Because the authority had made a determination without an enquiry or consideration of those objections, the Court found it appropriate to require a fair determination first.

pp. 16–17

It directed the authority to consider the replies and, if necessary, conduct a survey in the presence of the petitioners and the landowner.

pp. 16–17

Any further action would depend on the outcome of that process and must be taken in accordance with law.

pp. 16–17