ORDER : The grievance raised by the petitioners in the present Writ Petitions is limited to the extent of widening of National Highway-48 (New NH-75) from 0.00 Km., to 10.80 Km., within the Town limits of Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, Karnataka State. 2. The respondent–Town Municipal Council, Channarayapatna (TMC) has marked the properties of the petitioners for being demolished to widen the said National Highway without undertaking the due process of law and without determining the actual fact as to whether the properties constructed by the petitioners long ago indeed encroached the public lands or road or not. According to the petitioners, they have not encroached the public lands and the construction raised by them is on their own titled lands. Against this apprehension of threatened demolition, the petitioners have approached this Court by way these Writ Petitions. 3. Upon notice being issued to the respondent – TMC, it has filed the Statement of Objections before this Court alongwith certain documents and the learned counsel, Mr.C.N.Keshava Murthy has produced before this Court the Circular dated 22.12.2015 issued by the State Government, which inter alia stipulates that no permission shall be given to construct the buildings, canteens, hotels, etc. within the limits of 40 Meters from the centre of the road in case of National Highways, 40 Meters in case of State Highways and 25 Meters in case of District Main Roads and in the said Circular, dated 22.12.2005, in para 2 whereof, it is also indicated that the concerned Department or the localbodies may take appropriate legal action on already constructed unauthorized buildings. For undertaking such project of widening of the National Highway, the said TMC issued notice to the concerned persons for removal of their construction, which fell within the limit of 15 Meters from the centre of the road to the District Main Road to widen the said road in the larger public interest. 4. Mr.Keshava Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent-TMC has submitted before the Court that most of the persons, who have been in possession of their buildings within the said limit of 15 Meters have already given their consent and have removed their constructions to allow the TMC to widen the said road, in view of urgency in view of forthcoming Mahamastakabhishek Ceremony in Shravanabelagola, Hassan, except the present petitioners. He has however submitted before the Court that no force is being used by the TMC and no immediate demolition is threatened in case of petitioners’ properties, except, upon undertaking the due process of law in the matter. 5. Mr.K.N.Nitish, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.32351-354/2017 has pointed out before the Court that in terms of Section 82 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, (Act), the power lies with the Deputy Commissioner of the District, who can determine such dispute of boundary, if rights over the property is claimed against a Municipal Council by any person. Without undertaking the said adjudication process at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner, the respondent-TMC cannot be permitted to undertake the work of demolishing the private properties of the petitioners and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner may be directed to undertake such process for adjudication. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Section 82 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. (2) Any suit instituted in any civil court after the expiration of one year from the date of any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under subsection (1), or, if one or more appeals have been made against such order within the period of limitation, then from the date of any order passed by the final appellate authority, shall be dismissed (although limitation has not been set up as a defence) if the suit is brought to set aside such order or if the relief claimed is inconsistent with such order provided that the plaintiff has had due notice of such order. (3) (a) The powers conferred by this section on a Deputy Commissioner may also be exercised by an Assistant Commissioner [or any other officer of equal rank specified by the Government] in the case of a town municipal council; (b) Any person shall be deemed to have had due notice of an enquiry or order under this section if notice thereof has been given in accordance with rules made in this behalf by the Government.” 7. It is true that without determining the question either by the concerned Deputy Commissioner or by the competent civil court as to whether the petitioners’ properties exist on their land for which they hold a valid title or not, the respondents cannot be permitted to widen the road into the private properties of the petitioners, except undertaking the process of acquisition of the same in accordance with the relevant laws. The public authorities, even for a wide public cause, cannot take away the private property of any individual, except adopting the due process in accordance with law. 8. As has been submitted by Mr.Keshava Murthy, the learned counsel for the respondent-TMC also that no force has been used against the petitioners and the respondent-TMC has no objection for such adjudication to be undertaken by the concerned Deputy Commissioner, this Court is of the opinion that the parties deserve to be relegated before the concerned Deputy Commissioner. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioners may file their representations before the concerned Deputy Commissioner, Hassan within a period of two weeks from today with their relevant evidence of title and boundary of such title to the properties constructed by them and after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as to the respondent-TMC, the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan is directed to decide the question in accordance with the aforesaid Section 82 of the Act. 10. Till such adjudication is made, the respondent-TMC will not use any force for widening the road upon undertaking the demolition of the properties of the petitioners. 10. Till such adjudication is made, the respondent-TMC will not use any force for widening the road upon undertaking the demolition of the properties of the petitioners. However, it is made clear that if the Deputy Commissioner finds that the petitioners had encroached the public lands and had raised the construction in question on the public lands, it goes without saying that not only the petitioners’ properties to that extent would be liable for demolition, but the Deputy Commissioner may also impose and recover suitable damages to be recovered from the petitioners or other encroachers of public land. It is expected of the respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner, Hassan to undertake this adjudication process expeditiously and conclude the same within a period of two months from today, in view of the fact that the widening of road is a public project of larger public importance and because of such adjudication process, such project may not be unnecessarily and unduly further delayed. 11. Therefore, it is further directed that on filing of the representations with relevant evidence, the petitioners may appear before the said Deputy Commissioner, Hassan in the first instance on 24.1.2018 at 11.00 a.m. 12. The applicants, who have filed the impleading application in W.P.Nos.32351-354/2017 are also permitted to make their submissions before the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan. I.A.No.1/17 is accordingly disposed of. With these observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.