- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39400 WP No. 25643 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 25643 OF 2019 (GM-PP) BETWEEN: THE COMPETENT OFFICER AND MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MANDYA-571401 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.M. ANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, NO.76, SWATANTRA PALYA, 9TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, MANDYA CITY-571401 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRASAD, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.10.2017 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN M.A.NO.16/2014, UNDER ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 04.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39400 WP No. 25643 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CAV ORDER The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 10.10.2017 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (henceforth referred to as 'District Court') in M.A.No.16/2014 by which, it allowed the appeal filed under Section 10 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (henceforth referred to as 'Act of 1974'). 2. (i) The petitioner is a Municipal Council duly constituted under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. It had in terms of a resolution dated 20.04.1979 decided to allot site No.76 situate at Swatantrapalya, Mandya City, based on the application filed by Mr. K. Basavaraju, S/o late Kalaiah. An endorsement to that effect was issued on 05.05.1979. Later, the petitioner issued a notice to Mr. K. Basavaraju on 26.06.1991 calling upon him to produce certain documents to process the allotment further. The said Mr. K. Basavaraju deposited a sum of Rs.372/- on 08.09.1981. Again on 15.05.1992, another notice was issued calling upon him to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39400 WP No. 25643 of 2019 deposit the value of the site with interest. The petitioner contends that when the process of allotment was underway and the State Government was yet to confirm the allotment, the respondent illegally occupied site No.76 of Swatantrapalya. When the petitioner tried to evict her, she filed O.S.No.584/1990 for perpetual injunction against the petitioner and Mr. K. Basavaraju. The said suit was decreed and the petitioner was restrained from evicting the respondent from the suit property without following the due process of law. As against the said judgment, Mr. K. Basavaraju filed R.A.No.162/2004, which was dismissed in terms of the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1997. Later, he filed RSA No.865/2005, which too was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 10.01.2008. The said Mr. K. Basavaraju then approached the petitioner and its authorities requesting them to take necessary action to evict the respondent and handover possession of the site allotted to him. (ii) The petitioner therefore, as the competent authority under the Act of 1974, issued show-cause notice as prescribed under Section 4 of the Act of 1974. The respondent replied to the show-cause notice. Thereafter, an order dated 31.08.2013 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39400 WP No. 25643 of 2019 was passed under Section 5 of the Act of 1974. This was challenged by the respondent in an appeal under Section 10 of the Act of 1974 before the District Court in M.A.No.16/2014. The petitioner entered appearance and contested the appeal. However, the file maintained in its office pertaining to eviction proceedings was misplaced. The petitioner reconstructed the file and placed it before the District Court. The District Court after hearing the petitioner and the respondent, allowed the appeal in terms of the order dated 10.10.2017 and set aside the order dated 31.08.2013 passed by the petitioner on three grounds namely, (i) that the notice dated 06.01.2013 was not in accordance with Section 4 of the Act of 1974, (ii) the order dated 31.08.2013 is not in terms of Section 5 of the Act of 1974, (iii) that the objections filed by the respondent was not considered. (iii) Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the District Court, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The petitioner contends that though the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.584/1990 was upheld by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.162/2004 and by this Court in RSA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39400 WP No. 25643 of 2019 No.865/2005, it was entitled to evict the respondent by following the due process of law. It is contended that grant of perpetual injunction did not obliterate the right of the petitioner to take out proceedings in accordance with law to evict the respondent. It also contends that a mere opinion furnished by the Additional Secretary to the Government advising the petitioner to file a suit for recovery of possession rather than initiating steps under the Act of 1974, did not come in the way of initiating proceedings under the Act of 1974. It is contended that the notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1974 was issued to the respondent and she had replied to the said notice. Therefore, the respondent cannot contend that the mandatory notice was not issued. It is also contended that mere irregularity in issuing notice does not invalidate the proceedings or the order. It is contended that after considering the reply submitted by the respondent, an order of eviction was passed. It is contended that if the District Court found any irregularity in the procedure, it ought to have remanded the matter to the petitioner for fresh consideration rather than allowing the appeal in its entirety. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39400 WP No. 25643 of 2019 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the site in question belonged to the petitioner and is therefore, a "public premises" as defined under the Act of 1974. He contends that the respondent is in unauthorized occupation in the said public premises and therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1974 were applicable. He contends that a notice was issued as per Section 4 of the Act of 1974 followed by proceedings under Section 5 of the Act of 1974. He contends that the petitioner had taken all care to pursue the proceedings which resulted in an order under Section 5(1) of the Act of 1974. He also contends that the District Court was oblivious that the petitioner was not bound by the opinion of the Additional Secretary to Government, Department of Law and Justice that the petitioner had to file a suit for recovery of possession in view of the beneficial provisions contained in the Act of 1974. He contends that the District Court also held that no grounds were made out in the notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1974 though the petitioner had specifically notified the respondent that she is in unauthorized occupation of the property in question. He also contends that when an eviction notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1974 is issued, it is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39400 WP No. 25643 of 2019 incumbent upon the unauthorized occupant to establish that his/her occupation is authorized in law. He contends that when once the premises is a "public premises", then it is incumbent upon any person in possession to prove that his/her possession is authorized, else it would be deemed unauthorized. He contends that the very fact that the respondent was claiming title to the property without establishing how she got the property was sufficient enough for proceedings to be taken out against her under the Act of 1974. 5. (i) The petition is opposed by the respondent, who contends that this writ petition is filed after one year eight months from the date of the order passed in M.A.No.16/2014. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. She has contended that the lower Court records which were misplaced were rebuilt from the papers furnished by her. Therefore, it is claimed that the petitioner did not help the District Judge in building the records and this is evident from the anguish expressed by the District Judge. She contends that even before this Court, the petitioner did not make any effort to produce the records and the same - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39400 WP No. 25643 of 2019 was noted by this Court on 20.02.2023 and later, on 03.03.2023 this Court took exception to the petitioner not furnishing the records of the proceedings conducted by it. She contends that strangely the petitioner opened an order sheet dated 06.03.2008 in case No.ALN:CR:242/07-08. (ii) The respondent has contended that site No.76 is not a public premises and she is not an unauthorized occupant. She contends that unauthorized occupation means, occupation by a person who has no authority to occupy and includes the continuance to occupy the premises after the permission to occupy the premises has expired. She contends that the City Municipal Council, Mandya, had passed a resolution dated 28.09.1973 granting a site in favour of her husband who was residing therein for more than 20 years prior to the date of resolution. She contends that this was upheld by the Civil Court in O.S.No.584/1990 and confirmed by this Court in RSA No.865/2005. Therefore, she contends that initiation of proceedings under the Act of 1974 is perverse and illegal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39400 WP No. 25643 of 2019 6. The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1974 did not conform to the requirements specified under Section 4 of the Act of 1974 and the impugned order under Section 5 of the Act of 1974 was also a non-speaking order as it did not consider the case of the respondent. He contends that the husband of the respondent was issued with an endorsement by the erstwhile City Municipal Council, Mandya dated 28.09.1973 tentatively allotting a site bearing No.82, measuring east to west 30 feet and north to south 50 feet, subject to approval from the Divisional Commissioner. He contends that the possession of the respondent was therefore, not unauthorized but her possession was lawful. He also contends that the husband of the respondent had constructed a thatched shed on the said site since the year 1960 and in recognition of his prior possession, the aforesaid endorsement was issued. He therefore, contends that the petitioner did not consider these contentions but passed a cryptic order directing eviction of the respondent, which was set-right by the District Judge by allowing the appeal - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39400 WP No. 25643 of 2019 filed thereagainst. He therefore, prays that the petition be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. Records of the District Court were secured. I have also perused the records of the District Court. 8. A perusal of the notice issued by the petitioner to the respondent under Section 4 of the Act of 1974 shows that it was in respect of a site bearing No.76, measuring 40 feet x 50 feet, which purportedly was allotted to Mr. K. Basavaraju on 21.12.1979. It also appears that the State Government in terms of its notification bearing No.HUD-132-MIP-84 dated 17.01.1986 required Mr. K. Basavaraju to deposit enhanced upset price of Rs.40/- per square meter, while he had deposited a sum of Rs.372/- on 08.09.1980. It also appears that the respondent herein had filed a suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.584/1990 to restrain the petitioner and Mr. K. Basavaraju from interfering with her possession in the property bearing site No.76. The said suit after contest was decreed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39400 WP No. 25643 of 2019 The petitioner did not challenge the said decree but Mr. K. Basavaraju challenged it in R.A.No.162/2004 which was also dismissed on 01.02.2005. A second appeal was filed in RSA No.862/2005 by Mr. K.Basavaraju, which too was dismissed on 10.01.2008. After almost five years, on 06.05.2013, the petitioner caused a notice on the respondent under Section 4 of the Act of 1974, which reads as follows: "Whereas, I, the undersigned am of opinion, on the grounds specified below, that you are in unauthorized occupation of the public premises mentioned in the schedule below and that you should be evicted by the said premises. Now therefore, in pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, I hereby call upon you to show-cause on or before 21.05.2013 why such an order of eviction cannot be made." 9. The respondent submitted a reply on 20.05.2013 claiming that her husband was allotted the site in his possession and that she was residing in the said property. The petitioner thereafter held proceedings on 31.08.2013 which is as below: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39400 WP No. 25643 of 2019 "36. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ E¯ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¸ÀASÉå: £ÀCE:03:nJAr:2011 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25-7-2012 gÀAvÉ UÁA¢ü£ÀUÀgÀ ¸ÁévÀAvÀæöå¥Á¼Àå ¯ÉÃOmï£À ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ¸ÀASÉå 76gÀ°è£ 40'*50' CrUÀ¼À «¹ÛÃtðzÀ°è CPÀæªÀĪÁV EgÀĪÀ ²æêÀÄw.¹zÀݪÀÄägÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß RįÁè ¥Àr¸À®Ä Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Act 1980 Rule 9 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄgÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¸ÀASÉå:¥Ë¤:f¦J¸ï:¹Dgï:84:09-10 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 15-11-12gÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÀÄAqÀågÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¸ÀASÉå:ªÀÄĤ¹(2)¹Dgï:164:08-09 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 4-12-2012gÀAvÉ ¸ÉÊmï £ÀA.76gÀ 40'*50' Cr UÀ¼À ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ°è CPÀæªÀĪÁV EgÀĪÀ ²æêÀÄw.¹zÀݪÀÄägÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß RįÁè¥Àr¹ ²æÃ.PÉ.§¸ÀªÀgÁdÄ ©£ï. ¯ÉÃ||PÁ¼ÀAiÀÄågÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Act 1980 Rule 9gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¹zÀݪÀÄägÀªÀjUÉ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgï¥Àr¸À®Ä w½¹zÀÄÝ, ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¥ÀvÀæ, QªÀÄävÀÄÛ ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀ gÀ²Ãw, ºÀPÀÄÌ¥ÀvÀæ, ªÀUÉÊgÉ ºÁdgï¥Àr¹®èªÁzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ²æêÀÄw.¹zÀݪÀÄägÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß RįÁè¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¢£ÁAPÀ ¤UÀ¢üUÉƽ¹ ¥Éưøï gÀPÀëuÉAiÉÆqÀ£É PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸À®Ä DzÉò¢zÉ." 10. Following this, an order under Section 5 of the Act of 1974 was passed ordering eviction of the respondent. It is - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39400 WP No. 25643 of 2019 necessary to note that under Section 4 of the Act of 1974, the competent officer was bound to first form an opinion that the person in occupation of the public premises is unauthorized. After forming such an opinion, he is bound to issue a notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1974 setting out the grounds/reasons for treating such person as an unauthorized occupant. The contents of Form-A issued by the petitioner under Section 4 of the Act of 1974 do not show as to on what basis the petitioner had come to the conclusion that the respondent is in unauthorized possession. Be that as it may, when once the respondent had claimed that her husband was allotted a site bearing No.82, which had the same boundaries as that of site No.76, the petitioner ought to have considered the same. 11. The petitioner has now attempted to place on record many documents to show that the property claimed by the respondent bearing site No.82 was already allotted to a person named, Mr. Raju, S/o Chikkalingaiah. However, these materials were not produced before the District Court to non- suit the respondent. It is also relevant to note that the Civil Court in O.S.No.584/1990 has already recognized that the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39400 WP No. 25643 of 2019 respondent is in possession of site No.76 based on the claim of the respondent that her husband was allotted the site in the year 1979 in terms of a resolution passed by the City Municipal Council, Mandya. This judgment was confirmed in R.A.No.162/2004 and RSA No.865/2005. Therefore, it was beyond the purview of the petitioner to decide that the resolution under which the respondent was claiming was genuine or not. The petitioner who was a party in O.S.No.584/1990 failed to establish that the claim of the respondent that her husband was allotted a site was false. In that view of the matter, the District Court has rightly held that the proceedings conducted by the petitioner was not in accordance with section 4 and 5 of the Act of 1974. 12. Besides this, it was also justified in not remitting the case to the petitioner as the dispute had to be resolved before the Civil Court by Mr. K. Basavaraju based on his alleged better title. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the District Judge is just and proper and does not warrant interference. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39400 WP No. 25643 of 2019 13. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 14. Liberty is however reserved to both the petitioner and Mr. K. Basavaraju to establish their better title before the competent Civil Court and seek for recovery of possession, which shall however be in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 127