- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19475 WP No. 48171 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 48171 OF 2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. C. LATHA D/O CHOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.110, 4TH CROSS ALAHALLI EXTENSION MANDYA-571 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR .R, ADVOCATE) AND: CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER BANGALORE-MYSORE ROAD MANDYA-571 401. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.M. ANANDA, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER, QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE THE NOTICE DATED 23.09.2019 PASSED Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19475 WP No. 48171 of 2019 BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE NOTICE DATED 9.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND THE FINAL NOTICE DATED 19.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notices issued by the Commissioner of City Municipal Council vide Annexures-A, B and C, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be evicted from the petition premises. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the City Municipal Council. 3. Petitioner is asserting to be the absolute owner of the property bearing Municipal No.D4/3716/KV 315 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19475 WP No. 48171 of 2019 situated at Kuvempunagar, Mandya. Petitioner is tracing title based on an unregistered sale deed obtained by his father and in turn the gift deed executed by his father. Petitioner asserts that due to continuous interference by respondent he was compelled to file a bare suit for injunction in O.S.340/2012. Petitioner claims that the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed and respondent was restrained from interfering with petitioner's possession. Citing the decree rendered in O.S.No.340/2012, this writ petition is filed primarily on the ground that respondent has lost locus to initiate proceedings and issue notices vide Annexures-A, B and C having suffered a judgment and decree at the hands of the Court of first instance in O.S.No.340/2012. Therefore, placing reliance on the decree rendered in the suit for injunction simpliciter, these three notices are assailed before this Court. 4. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing for respondent/City Municipal Council citing the judgment of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19475 WP No. 48171 of 2019 the Appellate Court rendered in R.A.No.50/2017 contends that it has every right to issue notice under Section 262(A) of the Karnataka Municipal Act, 1964 (for short "the Act"). Respondent in the statement of objections has contended that petitioner's title is not at all decided and the same is forthcoming from the findings recorded by the Appellate Court while reserving liberty to the City Municipal Council to proceed against the petitioner in the manner known to law. Referring to these observations, respondent/City Municipal Council claims that notices are issued strictly aligning to the procedure provided under Section 262A of the Act. 5. Upon a detailed scrutiny of the impugned notices, this Court is of the considered view that the action initiated by the respondent is not in strict conformity with the procedure contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short, “KPP(EUO) Act”). As per Section 4(1) of the said Act, the Competent Officer must - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19475 WP No. 48171 of 2019 form an opinion that a person is in unauthorized occupation of a public premise, and only thereafter, may issue a notice requiring such person to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made against him. 6. In the present case, the petitioner has raised a two fold contention with regard to the validity of the notices. Firstly, it is contended that the notices in question are not issued by the Competent Authority in the manner prescribed under the Act. Secondly, and more importantly, the petitioner asserts that the impugned notices are not in the format prescribed under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Rules, 1980 (for short, “KPP(EUO) Rules, 1980”), particularly Forms A, B, and C appended thereto. 7. On careful examination of the material on record, this Court finds merit in the contention advanced by the petitioner. Although the Commissioner of the City Municipal Council is duly empowered to act as the Estate - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19475 WP No. 48171 of 2019 Officer and is therefore competent to initiate proceedings under the KPP(EUO) Act, 1974, the notices issued by the said authority do not conform to the procedural safeguards and formal requirements envisaged under the KPP(EUO) Rules, 1980. Specifically, the notices fall short of the mandatory structural and substantive requisites laid down in Form A (Notice to show cause), Form B (Eviction Order), and Form C (Warrant for possession). The absence of compliance with these prescribed formats vitiates the notices and renders them legally unsustainable. 8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned notices, having been issued in breach of the statutory procedure and without adherence to the prescribed forms, are liable to be quashed. 9. However, the respondent authority shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, strictly in accordance with law. If the respondent is of the opinion that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of public premises, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19475 WP No. 48171 of 2019 it may proceed to issue notice under Section 4(1) of the KPP(EUO) Act, 1974, and thereafter follow the due process as mandated under Section 4(2) of the Act, read with the applicable provisions of the KPP(EUO) Rules, 1980. It is further clarified that any such fresh proceedings must adhere scrupulously to the formats prescribed under Form A, Form B, and Form C, as the case may be, ensuring compliance with both procedural and substantive safeguards. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned notices dated 23.9.2019, 9.9.2019 and 19.6.2019 vide Annexures-"A to C" are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Liberty is reserved to respondent/City Municipal Council to initiate fresh proceedings by strictly adhering to Sections 4(1) and (2) of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19475 WP No. 48171 of 2019 the KPP(EUO) Act, 1974 read with the Formats provided under the KPP(EUO) Rules, 1980. (iv) All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41