Mr M P Vijaykumar v. State Highway Authority

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 21369 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:

MR M P VIJAYKUMAR S/O, R PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT, CHIKKAMARIYAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, MALUR TOWN, MALUR, TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563130

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIRAMA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1STATE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, 560001 ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

¶2EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA STATE HIGHWAYS IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT K.R CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560001

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM DEMOLISHING,

'LJLWDOO\VLJQHG E\6+:(7+$ 5$*+$9(1'5$ /RFDWLRQ +,*+ &28572) .$51$7$.$

DISPOSSESSING, OR INTERFERING WITH THE PETITIONER'S SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

¶1The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondents from demolishing, dispossessing, or interfering with the Petitioner's schedule properties and;

b) Direct the Respondents to provide all relevant survey records, sketches, road alignment plans and other documents pertaining to the proposed road widening project;

c) Direct the Respondents to afford the Petitioner a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing before taking any coercive action against the Petitioner's property;

d) Direct the Respondents not to proceed with demolition or acquisition proceedings of schedule properties without strictly following due process of law and principles of natural justice;

e) Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interests of justice and equity.

¶2The petitioner has approached this Court on the apprehension that the respondents are likely to demolish portions of petitioner's property situated in Sy. Nos. 83/1, 83/2, 83/3 and 32/1 of Maloor Village, Kasaba Hobli, Maloor Taluk.

¶3The said apprehension arose on account of certain markings made by the respondents on and around the petitioner's property. According to the petitioner, the markings indicated that the respondents were proposing to undertake demolition without following the due process of law.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner categorically submitted that no proceedings have been initiated for the acquisition of any portion of the petitioner's land either for the purpose of widening the existing National Highway or for any other public purpose. It was, therefore, contended that, in the absence of acquisition proceedings or any authority in law, any attempt by the respondents to interfere with or demolish the petitioner's property would be wholly illegal and violative of the petitioner's rights.

¶5In view of the above submission, this Court called upon the learned Additional Government Advocate to obtain instructions clarify whether any

acquisition proceedings had been initiated in respect of petitioner's property whether respondents intended to demolish any portion of the petitioner's existing construction.

¶6Pursuant thereto, the learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions from respondent No.2, submitted that the markings were made only pursuant to a survey conducted for the limited purpose of identifying the extent of land that may be required for a proposed widening of the existing National Highway. It is submitted that no final decision has yet been taken regarding acquisition and that the survey was merely a preliminary exercise undertaken for the purpose of preparing the proposal.

¶7It is further submitted that, based on the survey, the necessary particulars have been collected and a proposal for acquisition has been forwarded to the competent Government for its approval. It is only upon such approval that the statutory process of acquisition would be initiated by issuance of the requisite notifications in accordance with law. The learned Additional Government Advocate has categorically stated that until acquisition

proceedings are duly initiated and completed in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, the respondents shall not undertake any demolition or interfere with the petitioner's property. The said statement adequately addresses the apprehension expressed by petitioner sufficiently safeguards the petitioner's interests.

¶8Recording the aforesaid submission and undertaking made on behalf of the respondents, this writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

KTY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9