The Karnataka High Court has fined a panchayat development officer (PDO) ₹50,000 for demolishing part of a shop property in Koppal district’s Kukanur taluk without completing a lawful land acquisition process or paying compensation to the affected owner.
A two-judge bench headed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed an appeal filed by the development officer of Mangalore Gram Panchayat in Kukanur taluk. The Dharwad bench directed the PDO to pay the penalty from his own pocket to the affected party within four weeks.
The court upheld an earlier order directing the authorities to begin the acquisition process for the portion of the property that had already been demolished, determine the compensation due and pay it to the owner. The bench said that removing or demolishing residential or commercial property for public works such as road widening without acquisition proceedings or compensation violates Article 300A of the Constitution.
The case concerns property numbered 449/1 belonging to Dharmaveer in Mangalore village. The authorities had issued a notice on October 22, 2023, seeking removal of two feet allegedly encroaching on land required for road widening. Dharmaveer challenged the notice before the High Court.
The court had directed the authorities to issue prior notice to the property owner and conduct a survey before taking any removal action. It also said that a demolition notice should not be issued until it was established whether an encroachment had actually occurred. However, a portion of the property was demolished before the panchayat conducted the survey required under the court’s directions.
Dharmaveer subsequently approached the High Court again. The court directed the authorities to consider his representation and conduct a joint survey in his presence to identify the area allegedly encroached upon and the area that had been demolished. The joint survey found that the measurements of the property matched those recorded in the registered sale deed.
The property measured 1,584 square feet, of which approximately 105 square feet had been demolished, according to the report. Despite this finding, officials issued endorsements on September 2 and October 10, 2025, stating that no part of the shop had been demolished and that the petitioner had encroached on the land. Dharmaveer challenged those endorsements in a third petition before the High Court.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the PDO had acted in violation of the court’s directions and had failed to consider the petitioner’s representation. The counsel also submitted that Dharmaveer operated a clothing shop in the demolished portion, causing damage not only to the property but also to his livelihood.
The bench said that merely directing compensation for property already demolished would not provide complete justice to the affected party in a case where acquisition proceedings had not been initiated. It ordered the authorities to start the acquisition process for the demolished portion, determine the compensation and make the payment. The PDO was separately directed to pay the ₹50,000 penalty within four weeks.
