ORDER : All the petitioners claim to be absolute owners in lawful possession of the petition properties/buildings that are situate on the lines adjoining BengaluruMangalore Road which is notified to be the National Highway No.48 that passes through the Municipal limits of Sakleshpur Town. They are before this Court grieving against the alleged highhanded act of the respondents in demolishing or threatening to demolish the portions of their buildings on the arrogated assumption that they are built on the public roads by way of encroachment. 2. The official respondents having entered appearance have filed a Statement of Objections in a few of these matters with a request that the same be adopted for the rest. The respondent-Town Municipality has also filed the Statement of Objections. These respondents by their pleadings have taken up various contentions resisting the petition prayers. This Court in most of these matters had granted some protection by way of interim relief. All these matters involving substantially similar questions of law and fact have been taken up for final hearing with consent and are being disposed off by this common judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contend that they have acquired title to the petition properties by virtue of registered conveyances; they have been residing or running their businesses in the structures which have been long ago put up; some of these structures apparently have vintage value as can be ascertained from their photographs produced as Annexures to the writ petitions, their authenticity not being in question; that being so the respondent-Assistant Commissioner hand in glove with the officials of the respondent-Town Municipality have been making all out efforts to demolish the buildings in question in the guise of widening of the subject road. 4. The learned counsel Mr. Pavan Chandra Shetty appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.32285-32292/2018, W.P.Nos.35708-35709/2018 and connected matters vehemently submits that the respondent-Assistant Commissioner hand in glove with the powers that be, has highhandedly demolished the front portion of the petitioners buildings as are shown in the undisputed photographs at Annexures, that too by employing JCB vehicles brushing aside their humble request for not taking the law into his hands and sans determination of alleged encroachment by due process of law. Therefore the learned counsel seeks the injunctive relief against threat of demolition and compensatory relief for the damage done in gross violation of law. 5. Therefore the learned counsel seeks the injunctive relief against threat of demolition and compensatory relief for the damage done in gross violation of law. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader Shri Dildar Shiralli appearing for the State and the official respondents so also the learned panel counsel Shri Ravi Shankar appearing for the Town Municipality vehemently contend that the structures in question are apparently the encroachments; the Government Order bearing No. PWD 43 CRM 75 dated 18.02.1976, in terms of the Indian Road Congress Statistical Values specifically prescribes that from the middle of the National Highway upto 40 metres on its either side no structures should be put up; the Government Circular bearing No.PWD 46 CNH 88 dated 09.05.1988 inter alia mentions the dimensions of amongst others the National Highways and the prohibitory limits for construction of structures on either side of the same. 6. Both the HCGP and the panel counsel further submit that from the boundary line of the roads, no structures could have been put upto six metres on either side as per the statutory norms; not only these norms are violated by the petitioners but even encroachment has been made on the sides of the National Highway itself, resulting into its being enormously squeezed; this constriction of the National Highway has been the cause of several vehicular accidents, many of them fatal; during a short period of about three and a half years preceding the filing of the petitions, 190 accidents have occurred and 16 deaths of innocent citizens have happened; the town having historicity has inflow of travelers; the pedestrians also have been facing a lot of difficulty inasmuch as the pathway on either side of the road have been encroached by unauthorized constructions. Therefore the petitioners are liable to be non-suited. They also plead for dismissal of the petitions on the ground that disputed questions of facts are involved and that the petitioners have the alternate and efficacious remedy by way of a properly constituted suit. 7. I have heard all the learned counsel for the petitioners; I have also heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and other official respondents, and the learned panel counsel for the Town Municipality. I have perused the petition papers and the Statement of Objections. 8. 7. I have heard all the learned counsel for the petitioners; I have also heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and other official respondents, and the learned panel counsel for the Town Municipality. I have perused the petition papers and the Statement of Objections. 8. The contention of the petitioners that they are the owners of the petition structures and that the same have been put up in accordance with law several decades ago on their private properties is difficult to be decided in writ jurisdiction as rightly contended by the opposing counsel. But, there is prima facie material in the form of registered conveyances, Municipal Records and the Tax Receipts to show that there are certain structures over which the petitioners claim ownership; going by the pleadings of the respondents, it becomes very clear that the official respondents are posing threat of demolition on the ground that these structures are built on the public road after encroachment. In fact, the jugular vein of the case of the respondents is the encroachment. 9. The contention of Shri Pavan Chandra Shetty that the subject structures in his petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.32285-32292/2018, W.P.Nos.35708-35709/2018 and connected matters, have been damaged extensively by the highhanded act of respondent-Assistant Commissioner by employing the JCB vehicles, appears to be true going by the undisputed photographs produced as Annexures. This contention gains credence inasmuch as the respondent-State and its officials have not taken up the contention in the Statement of Objections by way of denial. Whatever that be, the matter requires deeper investigation for ascertaining the truth and for holding the officials responsible for the same liable. 10. The contention of the petitioners that their buildings are their abodes wherein they reside or carry on their business/occupation and that the demolition and the threat of demolition is violative of their Fundamental Right under Articles 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, also gains acceptance, in the absence of the highhanded act of the answering respondents. 10. The contention of the petitioners that their buildings are their abodes wherein they reside or carry on their business/occupation and that the demolition and the threat of demolition is violative of their Fundamental Right under Articles 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, also gains acceptance, in the absence of the highhanded act of the answering respondents. Right to personal liberty will be wounded if the very residing of the citizen in his house is disturbed; the demolition or its threat impinges citizens’ right to carry on their business/occupation as guaranteed under Article 19; if petitioners structures are sought to be taken away forcibly on the ground of encroachment, may violate Article 300A, in the absence of the right of the Government is established by due procedure. 11. Section 82 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1976 provides for the procedure and the machinery for removal of limits. In almost similar set of facts a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 03.082012 in W.P.Nos.26662-666/2012 (GM-RES) has observed that the encroachments cannot be removed except by the due process of law; another Coordinate Bench in its latest judgment dated 11.01.2018 in W.P.Nos.32351-32354/2017 (LB-RES) and other connected matters having interpreted the provisions of Section 82 of the Act at paragraphs 9 and 10 has observed as under: “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 questions 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. 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” 12. Yet another Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 03.03.2011 has considered the grievance of litigants from Berur town in W.P.No.36313/2010 (LA-RES) identical set of circumstances and the relief has been granted, observing “… If at all, the Respondent Authorities require the schedule properties for the purpose of widening of State Highway passing through Berur town, then the same have to be acquired in accordance with law. It is made clear that, if the petitioners have encroached upon the road, then, in that case also, the Respondent Authorities would have to remove the encroachments in accordance with law. Therefore it is necessary to observe that either for acquiring the properties belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of widening of road for State Highway or for removal of encroachment, if any, by the petitioners, the Respondent Authorities would have to act strictly in accordance with law and cannot straightaway initiate any action of demolition”. In fact in W.P.Nos.28704-714/2010 (LA-RES) arising from the Town Municipality of Sakleshpur in identical set of facts, yet another Bench has rendered the judgment dated 21.06.2011 granting relief to the litigants therein in terms of the said observations mentioned above. There is no reason to deviate from this beaten path of law. 13. In the aforesaid writ petitions in which Shri Pavan Chandra Shetty has argued, there is prima facie material to form an opinion that some of the properties of a few petitioners therein have been damaged by employing JCB machines. Apparently it cannot be by anyone than by the respondent-State officials. This is nothing but a high handedness on the part of officials of the State who are supposed to uphold the Rule of Law. In more or less a similar fact matrix, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7687/2011 (LB-RES) has rendered the judgment on 21.09.2012 at paragraph 10 whereof reads as under: “10. In the result, this petition is allowed. In more or less a similar fact matrix, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7687/2011 (LB-RES) has rendered the judgment on 21.09.2012 at paragraph 10 whereof reads as under: “10. In the result, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to forbear from interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the immovable property in question and directed to put up construction of a building on the site in question, of a measurement, equal to one which was demolished. The Secretary of the Revenue Department to whom the 2nd respondent is answerable and the Secretary of Urban Development to whom the 3rd respondent is answerable are directed to ensure the reconstruction of the building at the cost of Officers who demolished the building and not from the public exchequer. The Officers who had committed the illegality are directed to pay the said cost from out of their salary. The State is directed to record the above observations in the service registers of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner of the Municipality concerned. If the petitioner has suffered pecuniary loss on account of having to take residence elsewhere is entitled to institute a suit and receive damages from the concerned.” 14. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondents restraining them from interfering with petition properties/buildings/structures till after the issue of encroachment by the petitioners is decided by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner in accordance with Section 82 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1986 or any other law applicable to the facts of the case. In whichever of the above writ petitions, the damage to or demolition of petition buildings have allegedly taken place, the owners thereof are given liberty to make a representation seeking determination of the extent of damage and for the grant of compensatory relief, which shall be considered by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner within an outer limit of three months. This is in addition to whatever relief the aggrieved can seek before the Civil Court. After the enquiry directed above, the guilty officials responsible for damage/demolition shall be identified and the amount payable to the petitioners shall be recovered from the said officials and further an adverse entry shall be made in the Service Registers of the said officials. This is in addition to whatever relief the aggrieved can seek before the Civil Court. After the enquiry directed above, the guilty officials responsible for damage/demolition shall be identified and the amount payable to the petitioners shall be recovered from the said officials and further an adverse entry shall be made in the Service Registers of the said officials. The Compliance Report as to the determination of the damage, the payment of compensation to the aggrieved petitioners, its recovery from the guilty officials and the making of the adverse entry in their Service Registers shall be filed within four months reckoned from this day.