IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 18665 OF 2022 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT N ANUSUYAMMA

W/O A J NARAYAN,

AGED 85 YEARS, GANDSI GRAMA,

ARSIKERE TALUK,

HASSAN DISTRICT-573 119.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. N SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

PWD DEPARTMENT,

B H ROAD,

ARSIKERE 573 119.

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Digitally signed by RACE COURSE ROAD,

MAHALAKSHMI B M

HASSAN 573 119.

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BANGALORE 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. HARISHA A S.,AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO STOP THE WORK OF WIDENING THE ROAD WITHOUT

FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,

THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking relief in respect of the alleged un-authorized utilization of a land by the respondent for road widening, contending that such action is without authority of law and without payment of compensation.

2. The petitioner claims ownership of lands bearing Survey No.35 measuring 10 guntas and Survey No.37/3 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas of Gandsi Village, Arasikere Taluk and alleges that the portions of her lands have been utilized for widening of Arasikere-Channarayapatna road. The respondents dispute the said claim and denied any un-authorized utilization of the petitioner's land.

3. In the course of this proceedings, a report was placed on record by the respondents pursuant to an order passed by this Court to survey the land. The petitioner has disputed the said report by filing objections.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents have utilized her land without following due process of law and such action violates Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and the petitioner disputes the correctness of the report placed on record.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner is denied, the issues involved are purely factual and not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

6. Having considered the pleadings, the reports placed on record and the objections filed thereto, this Court is of the considered view that the report placed on record does not support the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has disputed the correctness of the said report by filing objections. The rival stand taken by the parties and the material on record demonstrate that the controversy involves disputed questions of facts including identification and extent of land allegedly utilized. Such disputed questions of fact require adjudication based on evidence and cannot be effectively examined in a proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court therefore, declines to exercise the writ jurisdiction and accordingly this Court pass the following

ORDER

i) The writ petition is dismissed.

ii) The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum for adjudication of her rights in accordance with law.

iii) All contentions of the parties are kept open.

iv) No opinion is expressed on the merits or demerits of the petitioner's claim.

Sd/-

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5