ORDER : 1. The petitioners in these cases have approached this Court by way of present set of writ petitions against the Respondent Town Municipal Council, Bangarpet, Kolar District and PWD Department of the Kolar District, who sought to widen the H.I.S (Haji Ismail Sait) Road (State Highway No.95), Bangarpet Town, Kolar District and the petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking protection against the demolition of their property for the said widening of the road, which is now described as the State Highway No.95 i.e., Hoskote - Venkatagiri Kote Road, which was earlier known as “H.I.S (Haji Ismail Sait) Road” passing through the Bangarpet town, where the present petitioners are said to have their properties in question. 2. The learned Senior counsel Mr.D.L.Jagadeesh appearing for the petitioners, on the anvil of Section 82 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, has urged before the Court that the concerned Deputy Commissioner – Respondent No.2 in the writ petitions has not held any enquiry in the matter in terms of S.82(1) of the Act and therefore, without any such enquiry held against these petitioners, the Respondents – PWD Department and Town Municipal Council cannot be allowed to widen the road by demolishing the properties of the petitioners. 3. Upon notice, the State has responded with a Statement of Objections filed in this Court on 28.07.2017 in the connected writ petitions namely, W.P.Nos.25950-954/2017 and the learned Govt. Advocate has urged before the Court with reference to paras – 5 and 18 of their Statement of Objections which are quoted below, that the Topo Sheet No.57 L/1 was published in the year 1973 by the Surveyor General of India and the width of the road in question was denoted as 50 Mtrs wide to the scale drawn in the Topo Sheet, which is produced as Annexure-R1 to the said Statement of Objections. She has also urged before the Court that in the Meeting held on 19.06.2015 by the Deputy Commissioner concerned, the Representatives of the concerned Departments and local M.L.A. also attended the said Meeting and a large section of public even consented to cooperate with the widening of the said road and make way for widening of the said road except these petitioners and Minutes of the said Meeting also has been produced vide Annexure-R8. 4. The learned Govt. 4. The learned Govt. Advocate also submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has already passed the orders against some of the petitioners on 07.06.2017 which is at Annexure-AF produced in W.P.Nos.25950-25954/2017. The names of the Applicants, who have been heard by the Deputy Commissioner as per that order are S.Iqbal Ahamed, Ansar Rahim, Smt.Mujamil Banu, Smt.Mukaviara Banu, Smt.Mushik Kera Banu, Mr.Vashkir Rahim @ Akil, Jaheeda Begum, B.Abdul Azeem, Smt.Sajeeda Begum, B.Abdul Aleem, Syed Nazir Ahamed, T.R.Sudhakar. 5. Paras-5 and 18 of the Statement of Objections filed by the State in W.P.Nos.25950-954/2017 are quoted below for ready reference:- “5. It is submitted that the Petitioners all claims to be adjacent and in occupation of properties besides the State Highway No.95 i.e., Hoskote – Venkatagiri Kote Road earlier called as Haji Ismail Sait Road passing through Bangarpet Town. The said road was a Major District Road, which is now upgraded as State Highway95. In this regard the Topo sheet No.57 L/1 was published during 1973 by the Surveyor General of India. In the said Topo sheet, the width of the road denoted as 50 Mts. wide to the scale drawn in the Topo sheet. In other words, any building or portion lying within the said 50 Mts., are admittedly encroached and therefore there is no question of initiating acquisition proceedings and subsequent payment of compensation in respect of such illegal encroachments. A copy of the Topo Sheet issued by the Surveyor General of India is herewith produced and marked as Annexure-R1. 18. It is pertinent to mention here that, for the cause of road widening a public meeting was called on 19-06-2015 under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, in the presence of local M.L.A. and the officers of concerned Departments along with public. In the said meeting, for the purpose of widening of the road, the public at large have consented to cooperate and also some of the illegal encroachers have also come forward voluntarily to demolish the constructions over the properties which were illegally encroached. A copy of the proceedings dated 19-06-2015 is herewith produced and marked as Annexure-R8. 6. Section 82(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, is quoted below for ready reference:- “82. Decision of claims to property by or against the municipal council. A copy of the proceedings dated 19-06-2015 is herewith produced and marked as Annexure-R8. 6. Section 82(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, is quoted below for ready reference:- “82. Decision of claims to property by or against the municipal council. – (1) In any municipal area to which a survey of lands, other than lands ordinarily used for the purposes of agriculture only, has been or shall be extended under any law for the time being in force, where any property or any right in or over any property is claimed by or on behalf of the municipal council, or by any person as against the municipal council it shall be lawful for the Deputy Commissioner after enquiry, of which due notice has been given to pass an order deciding the claim”. 7. The learned counsel for the 5th Respondent – Town Municipal Council has submitted that the Municipal Council only supplies man and machines and necessary materials for undertaking the said project of road widening by the PWD Department. 8. In other connected writ petitions, however, the petitioners do not seem to have been so far heard by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of S.82(1) of the Act. It is needless to say that the questions of facts about the actual area of the Titled land of the petitioners and the area in their actual possession, over which they have constructed their property is a question of fact, which cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. If the petitioners’ construction is within their titled land, obviously they cannot be deprived of any portion of their property without undertaking the process of acquisition of their property in accordance with law. If, however the petitioners are found to be in illegal possession of the Government land or public land in excess of their title land, or otherwise they have encroached over the public land, there is no question of acquiring the Govt. land itself from the petitioners or dispossessing them for the said purpose, irrespective of the number of years, for which they might have held such possession illegally. 10. land itself from the petitioners or dispossessing them for the said purpose, irrespective of the number of years, for which they might have held such possession illegally. 10. These questions of facts can be determined only in two ways, (1) by the enquiry held by the Deputy Commissioner u/S.82(1) of the Act on the basis of evidence to be led by the petitioners or (2) the persons claiming to be the owners and in possession of the property in question, adjacent to the road in question, obtain Decree by the competent Civil Court in a properly instituted civil suit for Declaration of Title. 11. Except these aforesaid two remedies, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an absolutely misconceived remedy in such type of cases. 12. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain these writ petitions and the same deserve to be disposed of only with a direction to the petitioners to approach the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Kolar District, if an order in terms of S.82(1) of the Act has not already been passed in their case for widening of the road in question. 13. In such cases only, upon the declaration by the petitioners that Deputy Commissioner has not dealt with their case already, the petitioners concerned may approach the Deputy Commissioner of Kolar District – 2nd Respondent without any further notice to such petitioners from the Deputy Commissioner in the first instance on 12.11.2018 and adduce all relevant evidence with regard to their title, actual possession of area, actual area of construction, the distance from the centre of the road in question etc., It is expected of the 2nd Respondent – Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, to hold an enquiry in the matter u/S.82(1) of the Act and he shall pass the appropriate orders, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of two months thereof. It is made clear that the petitioners will not await for any fresh notice of enquiry or summons from the Deputy Commissioner in this regard and without fail, they must appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Kolar District, u/S.82(1) of the Act on 12.11.2018 and subsequent date(s) as may be fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. 14. It is made clear that the petitioners will not await for any fresh notice of enquiry or summons from the Deputy Commissioner in this regard and without fail, they must appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Kolar District, u/S.82(1) of the Act on 12.11.2018 and subsequent date(s) as may be fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. 14. Like the aforesaid other petitioners who are covered by the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 07.06.2017, the present petitioners would also be bound by the order to be now passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Respondents – PWD Department and CMC are free to proceed further in accordance with law, once the Deputy Commissioner has passed such orders, as directed above against the petitioners also in whose cases such orders u/S.82(1) of the Act has not already been passed. 15. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.