Karnataka HC Orders Panchayat Officer To Pay ₹50,000 Personally For Demolishing 105 Sq Ft Of Home Despite Court Orders To Survey First

Dharmaveer claimed ownership of property No. 449/1 under a registered sale deed dated 3 May 1967 and operated a shop there.

After the Panchayat issued a notice alleging a two-foot encroachment for road widening, earlier writ proceedings directed a survey before further action.

Despite those directions, part of the property was demolished.

In a later writ petition, the Single Judge directed the authorities to consider Dharmaveer’s representation and conduct a joint survey through the Assistant Director of Land Records.

The resulting joint survey report stated that the property’s measurements were consistent with the sale deed and that approximately 105 square feet had been demolished.

The Single Judge quashed endorsements denying demolition and directed acquisition proceedings and compensation.

The Panchayat Development Officer appealed.

Article 300A of the Constitution protects against deprivation of property except by authority of law; the Court treated demolition of property without acquisition proceedings or compensation as unlawful deprivation of property and livelihood.

The Court also relied on the binding effect of its earlier orders requiring a survey and identification of any encroachment before further action.

No statute or judicial precedent was expressly relied on by the appellate Court.

The joint survey report found no encroachment and recorded that approximately 105 square feet within the property described in the registered sale deed had been demolished.

The Court considered the demolition alongside the earlier orders directing a survey and the subsequent failure to follow those directions before demolishing the property.

Because the demolition was not supported by acquisition proceedings or payment of compensation, the Court held that the Single Judge’s directions were warranted and that there was no basis to interfere.

Given the Panchayat Development Officer’s conduct in acting contrary to the Court’s orders, compensation alone was insufficient and exemplary costs were appropriate.

The Single Judge’s directions to initiate appropriate acquisition proceedings and determine and pay compensation in accordance with the joint survey report were left undisturbed.

The Court further ordered the Panchayat Development Officer to pay ₹50,000 personally to Dharmaveer within four weeks of receiving a copy of the judgment.