Karnataka High Court Fines Panchayat Officer ₹50K Over Illegal Demolition Without Formal Acquisition & Compensation To Victim

The Karnataka High Court upheld an order which held that the demolition of a citizen's residential or commercial property for public projects like road widening without initiating formal acquisition proceedings or paying compensation amounts to a deprivation of property and livelihood, violating Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

A Division Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna and Justice Hema Kulkarni, consequently, dismissed a writ appeal filed by a Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) challenging a Single Judge's order that directed the initiation of land acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation for the unauthorized demolition of a shop owner's property. It further imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on the Panchayat Development Officer.

“The joint survey that is conducted clearly indicates that there is no encroachment in the case at hand. The petitioner has produced the sale deed pursuant to which the petitioner entered the property, which shows that it is 176 salagaja, which amounts to 1584 square feet, out of which 105 square feet is the alleged portion that has been demolished. That the demolition has taken place without due process of law is what can be discerned from the orders passed by the learned Single Judges of this Court, not once but thrice,” the Court observed.

It added, “Therefore, there is no warrant of interference with the order that is passed by the learned Single Judge directing initiation of acquisition proceedings and determination of compensation for the act of the appellant having demolished the property of the petitioner.
Directing payment of compensation alone would not be sufficient to render complete justice to the petitioner, whose property has been illegally demolished by the Panchayat Development Officer in the teeth of the orders of this Court. For the aforesaid action, adequate costs have to be imposed, taking into account the conduct of the appellant and the damage caused to a citizen whose property has been subjected to illegal demolition..."

The case arose from a notice dated October 22, 2023, issued by Gram Panchayat, for removal of alleged 2-foot encroachment done by the respondent-petitioner (Dharamveer), for road widening. The respondent-petitioner, Dharmaveer, submitted that he had purchased the said property in Mangalore Village under a registered sale deed in May 1967. Subsequently, he constructed a shop on the site and was running a cloth business to earn his livelihood.

The petitioner challenged this before the High Court, where a Single Judge directed the authorities to not take any action until a survey is conducted to ascertain the encroached area.

Despite these directions, the Gram Panchayat proceeded with the demolition of a part of the petitioner's shop without conducting the mandated survey.

The petitioner again approached the High Court a second time, leading the Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR) and local authorities to execute a joint survey in the presence of the petitioner. The joint survey report subsequently showed that the total built-up area matched the petitioner's registered title deed and that a part of his property had indeed been demolished.

However, the Gram Panchayat later issued endorsements in September and October 2025, falsely claiming that no demolition occurred and alleging encroachment. In the third round of litigation, the Single Judge quashed the endorsements and ordered the Gram Panchayat to initiate formal land acquisition proceedings and disburse full compensation within three months. Aggrieved by this, Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) filed an appeal against the Single Judge order.

Noting the illegal demolition undertaken by the PDO “in the teeth” of the High Court's order, the Division Bench said, “For the aforesaid action, adequate costs have to be imposed, taking into account the conduct of the appellant and the damage caused to a citizen whose property has been subjected to illegal demolition, apart from which the demolition having been carried out without even waiting for a joint survey pursuant to the orders of this Court.

The Court imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on the PDO, to be paid “from his pocket” to the petitioner within four weeks.