The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a Panchayat Development Officer and imposed personal costs of ₹50,000 for demolishing part of a citizen’s property despite earlier court directions. A Division Bench comprising Justice M. Nagaprasanna and Justice Hema Kulkarni directed the officer to pay the amount from his own pocket within four weeks.
Background
The dispute concerned property bearing No. 449/1 in Mangalore village, Koppal district. Dharmaveer, the property owner, had purchased the land through a registered sale deed dated May 3, 1967, and was running a cloth shop on the premises.
In October 2023, the Gram Panchayat issued a notice seeking removal of an alleged two-foot encroachment for road widening. In an earlier round of litigation, the High Court directed the authorities to conduct a survey and establish whether any encroachment existed before taking further action.
However, part of the property was subsequently demolished. The owner approached the Court again, leading to directions for a joint survey involving the concerned authorities.
The survey report found that approximately 105 square feet of the property had been demolished and that its measurements matched the registered sale deed. Despite these findings, the authorities issued endorsements denying the demolition and alleging encroachment.
The Single Judge subsequently quashed the endorsements and directed the authorities to initiate acquisition proceedings for the demolished portion and determine compensation in accordance with the survey report.
Challenging that order, the Panchayat Development Officer argued before the Division Bench that the demolished portion involved an encroachment.
Rejecting the challenge, the Bench relied on the joint survey report and the sequence of earlier judicial directions. It observed:
"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."
The Court further noted that the demolition had taken place without following due process, despite repeated judicial directions. It upheld the finding that demolishing property without initiating acquisition proceedings or paying compensation amounted to deprivation of property and livelihood under Article 300A of the Constitution.
The Bench also emphasised that compensation alone would not adequately address the officer's conduct.
"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."
The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's direction to initiate acquisition proceedings and determine compensation. Taking into account the officer's conduct and the demolition carried out without awaiting the court-directed joint survey, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
It imposed exemplary costs of ₹50,000 on the Panchayat Development Officer, directing him to pay the amount personally to Dharmaveer within four weeks of receiving a copy of the judgment.
Case Details
Case Title: The Panchayat Development Officer, Mangalore Village Panchayath v. Dharmaveer and Others
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 100261 of 2026 (LB-RES)
Judges: Justice M. Nagaprasanna and Justice Hema Kulkarni
Decision Date: September 22, 2026
