IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 7113 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. JAGADISH S/O LATE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. SRI PRAKASHA T.E.

S/O LATE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT THIRUMALASHETTIHALLI ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK-560 067 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS Digitally (BY SRI. SURESHA .M, ADVOCATE)

signed by NAGARAJA B M AND:

Location:

HIGH COURT

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (KRRDA)

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU 560 001.

3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (KRRDA)

NO.305, 3^RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDINGS BENGALURU 560 001

4. THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER KARNATAKA RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (KRRDA)

3^RD FLOOR, GRAMEENABHIVRUDHI BHAVAN ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560 009.

5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (KRRDA)

3^RD FLOOR, GRAMEENABHIVRUDHI BHAVAN ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560 009.

6. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SAMENATHANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH SAMETHANAHALLI POST ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU-560 067.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;

SRI. MANU .K, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5;

SRI. D.V. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO FORM / WIDEN THE ROAD OR ROADS IN THE PETITIONER'S LAND 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 MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned writ petition is instituted invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 5 to duly notify, acquire and thereafter form a road over the subject property strictly in accordance with law. The grievance of the petitioners is founded on an imminent and real apprehension that the respondent–authorities, without initiating any lawful acquisition proceedings, are attempting to lay a road by encroaching upon the petitioners’ land and demolishing the immovable structures standing thereon. It is in this backdrop, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court seeking protective and corrective reliefs.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6.

Perused the material on record with utmost care.

3. On a meticulous examination of the records, particularly the photographs produced at Annexures–F, F1 and F2, this Court finds prima facie substance in the apprehension voiced by the petitioners. The said photographs unmistakably indicate that the respondent– authorities have already demarcated/marked the petitioners’ property with an apparent intention to carve out a road. Such an action, if undertaken dehors the procedure established by law, cannot be countenanced.

4. It is trite that though the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it continues to be a valuable constitutional right protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The said provision, which embodies a constitutional limitation on State action, mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The expression “authority of law” has been consistently interpreted to mean a validly enacted law coupled with strict adherence to the procedure prescribed therein.

5. The right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, though not elevated to the pedestal of a fundamental right, nevertheless partakes the character of a co