Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 11636
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M.I.ARUN, J
SRI P. CHANDRAKANTH S/O PARASMAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 15382 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI LAKAMAPURMATH CHIDANANDAYYA
For the Respondents: SRI YOGESH D. NAYAK
Due process must be followed in property acquisition before any dispossession occurs.
Headnote:The petitioners are owners of the writ petition schedule property. The respondents intend to widen the road adjacent to the property and marked portions but must follow due process. Disputes arose over the ownership; however, the respondents assured adherence to the law. The court directed the respondents to utilize the property only after due process.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership dispute and requirement of due process for property acquisition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The case of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of the writ petition schedule property.
2. It is submitted that respondents are intending to widen the road facing the writ petition schedule property and have marked certain portions of the schedule property. It is further submitted that there is a threat of dispossession without following the due process.
3. The respondents dispute the ownership of the petitioner over the property concerned. However, they submit that even otherwise if the same has to be utilized for the formation of the road, the same will be done after following the due process and not otherwise.
4. Their submission is placed on record.
5. Hence, the following:
ORDER i. Respondents are directed to utilize the writ petition schedule property only after following the due process of law and not otherwise.
ii. Writ petition is disposed of.
