Karnataka High Court
Sri. A.N. Madankumar vs State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2025
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5759-DB
WA No. 4834 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
WRIT APPEAL NO. 4834 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. A.N. MADANKUMAR
S/O. LATE A.V. RAMARAO
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
RESIDING AT NO. 2986/1
7TH MAIN, MCC-B BLOCK
DAVANAGERE CITY-577 004.
2. SRI. SAVAN Y. AMBERKER
S/O. LATE Y. Y. AMBERKER
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
Digitally signed OCC: BUSINESS
by SUMATHY
KANNAN RESIDING AT OLD P.B. ROAD
Location: HIGH DAVANAGERE CITY -577 004.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. N. V. AMBERKER
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
a) MOHAN NAMBERKER
S/O. LATE N.V. AMBERKER
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
RESIDING AT OLD P.B. ROAD
DAVANAGERE CITY-577 004.
b) A N RAVINDRANATH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5759-DB
WA No. 4834 of 2016
(b)(i) JAYASHRI R AMBERKER
W/O LATE A N RAVINDRANATH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT OLD P B ROAD
DAVANAGERE CITY - 577004.
(b)(ii) ABHIJITH R AMBERKER
S/O LATE A N RAVINDRANATH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT OLD P B ROAD
DAVANAGERE CITY - 577004.
(cause title amended vide court order dated 12.04.2023)
(c) A.N. RAMESH
S/O LATE N.V. AMBERKER
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
C/O. AMBERKER VIRUPANNA TESTILES
OPP. OLD BUS STAND
OLD PB ROAD
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR SWAMY G S - ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S V
PRAKASH - ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (C&B)
K.R. CIRCLE, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SHIMOGA CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5759-DB
WA No. 4834 of 2016
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DAVANAGERE DIVISION
DAVANAGERE-577 601.
5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION
DAVANAGERE-577 601.
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
DAVANAGERE.
7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION
DAVANAGERE.
8. THE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
DAVANAGERE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE CITY
DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISHA A S - AGA FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 7;
MS. HARINI - ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B K MANJUNATH -
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.8)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT PETITION
58719/2015 DATED 19/10/2016.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:5759-DB
WA No. 4834 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the
order passed by the learned single Judge in
W.P.No.58719/2015 dated 19.10.2016.
2. Learned counsel Sri Shivakumar Swamy G.S.
representing Sri S.V.Prakash for appellants is present
before the Court physically. Similarly, learned AGA for
respondent Nos.1 to 7 and learned counsel Ms.Harini
representing Sri B.K.Manjunath for respondent No.5 are
present before the Court physically.
3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the
ancestor of the appellants by name Doddayallappa
purchased the schedule property from one Bhondade
Balappa under registered sale deed for valuable
consideration and subsequently, in the year 1930
constructed residential house in the schedule property.
Thereafter there was partition among the members of the
family of the appellants and in the said partition, the
NC: 2025:KHC:5759-DB
property was divided into three parts and allotted to
A.V.Ramrao, N.A.Ambreker and Y.Y.Ambreker measuring
60 x 100 feet and rest of the area was allotted to the
shares of other two brothers. It is contended that the
Government issued Circular dated 18.12.1997 wherein
there was a direction to the Public Works Department not
to demolish the buildings constructed in the private
property even if they lie within the road margin and if
those buildings to be demolished for the development of
the road, the said properties have to be acquired by
initiating proceedings for acquisition under the Land
Acquisition Act. However, the respondents without notice
had demolished portion of their building against which
W.P.No.58719/2015 came to be filed before this Court.
The learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition
observed that the matter was adjourned to two occasions
on the request of the counsel appearing for the appellants
and therefore, the petitioners have taken the litigation
leisurely instead of vigorously and relegated the
petitioners to go before the competent Civil Court for
NC: 2025:KHC:5759-DB
redressal of their grievances. These are all the
contentions taken by the counsel for the appellants.
4. Appellants are the owners of the schedule
property situated alongside old P.B.Road (now claimed to
have been designated as Birur-Sammassgi State Highway
No.76) in Davanagere City. The respondents had orally
directed the appellants to demolish the portion of the
building standing on the schedule property for widening of
the road. Since the appellants refused to demolish, the
respondents have demolished the portions of the building
on the schedule property. These are all stated in the brief
facts of the case. However, the learned single Judge in
the impugned order has observed that from the record of
the case also it appears that this writ petition was filed in
this Court 19.12.2015. At least on two occasions, the
order sheet would show that on 21.07.2016 when the
matter first came up before the Court, the matter was
adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the
petitioners and again on 25.08.2016 it was so adjourned
at his request again. Therefore, prima facie, it also
NC: 2025:KHC:5759-DB
appears that the petitioners have taken this litigation
leisurely instead of vigorously pursing the same. Be that
as it may, that is not very relevant at this stage in as
much as this Court is of the firm opinion that in such
cases, writ petition is not the appropriate remedy and
filing of civil suit with clear and specific averments is the
only appropriate remedy in such cases. The plaintiffs or
petitioners must establish their case with relevant
evidence before the competent Civil Court before urging
the Courts to grant compensation in such cases. On the
basis of mere affidavits, this Court would be able to decide
the legality of the action taken by the respondents and
then determine the quantum of compensation, if any
payable to the petitioners. With the said observation, the
writ petition came to be dismissed.
5. Keeping in view the submission made by the
counsel for the appellants and so also, having gone
through the impugned order passed by the learned single
Judge in the aforesaid writ petition, we deem appropriate
to state that it does not arise for dwelling in detail into the
NC: 2025:KHC:5759-DB
impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. We
do not find any illegality or infirmity committed by the
learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition.
However, the appellants are at liberty to agitate their
issues before the compe tent Civil Court. With the above
observation, the writ appeal stands disposed of.
SD/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
SD/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
DKB
