IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 39950 OF 2013 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. LAKSHMAN RAO B R S/O LATE RAJOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC:NIL R/O B H ROAD BESIDE PANDURANGA VITTALA TEMPLE BIRUR TOWN KADUR TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577116 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S V PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S 1. STATE OF KARANATAKA Location: H IGH REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY COURT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI K R CIRCLE BANGALORE-1

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT(C & B)

DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-1

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT CHIKMAGALUR-577101

4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BIRUR SUB DIVISION BIRUR CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577116

5. THE SUPDT. ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAY CIRCLE K R CIRCLE BANGALORE-1

6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BIRUR SUB DIVISION BIRUR, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577116 7. TOWM MUNICIPALITY BIRUR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577116

8. THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI-111001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. .,ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ALSO FOR THE STRUCTURE STOOD THEREON IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.POST W.P. FOR PRLY. HG.

BEFORE SINGLE JUDGE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4; Sri. S. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 and Sri. Harsha P. Banad, learned CGC learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8; Sri. P. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 5 and 6 and Sri. Anirudha A. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.9.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner in respect of the property being demolished by the respondent- authorities for the purpose of widening of National Highway No. 206 (Tumkur-HOnnavara National HIghway).

3. It is argued by Sri. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner that, the schedule property belonging to the petitioner has been demolished without any notice to the petitioner and the petitioner had acquired the schedule property as per the proceedings in FDP No.15 of 1994 (Annexure-A). It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the order dated 10.08.2011 in W.P.No.23879 of 2010 (Annexure-V) and by referring to paragraph 7, it is contended that the respondent- authorities without providing fair opportunity to the petitioner had demolished the house of the petitioner as per the photographs (Annexures-W and X series) produced in the writ petition. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to Annexure-AW, wherein, the respondent No.7, has taken steps for release the compensation in favour of similarly placed persons and the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl No.27 and accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, petitioner being a owner of the schedule property and as acquired/demolished by the respondent- authorities illegally and as such, entitle for compensation from the respondent-authorities.

4. Per contra, Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned counsel for the respondent No.7, reiterates the statement made in the statement of objections, and further contended that the petitioner has sold the schedule property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 05.07.2018, and as such, the petitioner is no more a owner of the property in question and accordingly, sought dismissal of the writ petiti