Disputed cart-road encroachment must be determined through a fresh survey with both parties present.

The petitioners challenged the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal’s order allowing respondent No. 5’s appeal and setting aside the Deputy Commissioner’s direction to remove an alleged encroachment or blockage of a cart road (bandi dari) in Sy. No. 3/11, Gopalanahalli Village.

The petitioners claimed the road was their only access to their land and that respondent No. 5 had blocked it.

The Tribunal had interfered with the Deputy Commissioner’s order on the ground that respondent No. 5 had not been given notice when the survey was conducted.

The petitioners sought to quash the Tribunal’s order.

Whether the Tribunal’s order setting aside the Deputy Commissioner’s direction should be quashed where the Tribunal relied on the absence of notice to respondent No. 5 during the survey.

Whether a fresh survey in the presence of the parties was appropriate to determine whether the cart road had been encroached upon or blocked.

The Court did not cite any specific statute, precedent, or defined legal test. It proceeded on the need to resolve the alleged road-access dispute through a fresh survey conducted in the presence of both parties, with any subsequent action by the authorities to be taken in accordance with law.

The writ petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court noted that the Tribunal had set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s order solely because respondent No. 5 had not received notice at the time of the survey.

Given the petitioners’ allegation that the cart road had been blocked, the Court considered a fresh survey with both sides present an appropriate means of resolving the dispute. It directed the Tahsildar and jurisdictional ADLR to conduct that survey and left any action on a finding of encroachment or blockage to the authorities in accordance with law.

If the survey establishes an encroachment or blockage by either party, the authorities are to take further action in accordance with law. The respondents were directed not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession of the schedule property until the proceedings conclude. The writ petition was disposed of.