1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.7507 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1 . THE PUTTIGE GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SMT. SUNITHA G. SALIAN, AGED 55 YEARS, PUTTIGE, MOODABIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 226. 2 . SRI. UDAYA NAIK AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. SHRIDHAR NAIK, R/AT NELLIGUDDE, MITHABAIL POST, PUTTIGE VILLAGE, MOODABIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 226. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MANOHAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRA M. M, NEAR PUTTIGE DWARA, CHOIR, PUNDU, PUTTIGE VILLAGE, MOODBIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 227. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C., ADVOCATE) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1908, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.03.2021 ON IA II AND IA X IN OS NO.150/2020 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. MOODABIDRI VIDE ANNEXURE ‘V’ WHEREBY THE TRIAL COURT BY EXERCISING THE POWER UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC HAS DIRECTED THE PETITIONER NO.2/DEFENDANT NO.2 TO HANDOVER THE VACANT POSSESSION OF THE PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES TO RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF AND ALSO DIRECTED THE PETITIONER NO.1 NOT TO DISPOSSESS THE RESPONDENT FROM PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the orders dated 26.03.2021 passed on I.A.No. II and X in O.S.No. 150/2020 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidri and consequently allow the same. 2. The Petitioners no. 1 & 2 herein are the defendants no. 1 & 2 before the trial court and Respondent herein was the Plaintiff before the Trial Court. 3 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner no.1 herein is the Grama Panchayat constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The shop bearing Door No. 3-350 situated in panchayath building in Kayarpundu Puttige village within the limits of the petitioner no. 1 panchayath was auctioned in favour of one Mr. Manohar S/o Chandra M.M/Respondent herein, in the auction dated 11-09-2017 on rent and the period of lease/license expired on 10-09-2020. The copy of license/ lease agreement executed by Respondent-Manohar dated 11/09/2017. After expiry of the said period of term of lease/license, fresh auction was held for the term 2020-2021 by the petitioner no.1 panchayath and shop was obtained by one Mr. Udaya Naik/petitioner no.2 herein being the highest bidder and thus a fresh agreement dated 15-09-2020 was executed by Udaya Naik- petitioner no.2 herein in favour of petitioner no. 1 valid from 15/09/2020 to 14/09/2023 on a monthly rental of Rs.8,100/-. Then, the Notice dated 19.09.2020 was issued to Manohar/respondent by the Petitioner no.1/Panchayath to hand over the possession of the said shop within 3 days and the same was also communicated to executive officer of Taluk panchayath, 4 Moodabidri to by the Petitioner No.1. Again a second and third notice was issued to the Respondent on 24.09.2020 and 28.09.2020 respectively. As the respondents started threatening and started troubling, petitioners lodged a complaint against Respondent on 05/10/2020 and the possession of the said shop was obtained and the articles found in the shop were drawn by way of panchnama. As the matter stood thus, on 13-10-2020 respondent trespassed into the said building and broke open the door of the shop and caused damage and then FIR came to be registered in Crime No. 217/2020 of Moodabidri Police Station on the basis of the complaint lodged by petitioner no. 1 panchayath for the offences punishable under sections 425, 426, 441, 442, 447 of IPC and section 2(A) of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed a bare suit for injunction against the petitioner no.1 panchayath in O.S No. 150 of 2020 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC at Moodabidri. The said suit came up for hearing on 05/10/2020 and petitioner no-1 entered appearance and submitted that suit is infructuous as the Respondent-Plaintiff had already handed over the premises. 5 Despite the submission that suit is infructuous, the trial court ordered petitioner no.1 not to dispossess the Respondent from the shop premises. Petitioner no.2 came to be impleaded as defendant in the suit per order dated 18/12/2020. Plaintiff-Respondent, along with the plaint, had also filed an application as per I.A. No.II under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 r/w section 151 of CPC for temporary injunction against the petitioner no-1. The Respondent had also filed compliant under section 200 of Cr.P.C per P.C.No. 14/2020 before the court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidri on 13/10/2020 alleging that on 12/10/2020 the officials have taken possession illegally by holding out threats. Along with the said complaint, the respondent had also filed I.A under section 94 of Cr.P.C along with the affidavit praying to pass the order directing the S.H.O of Moodabidri to search the Puttige village Panchayath premises and seize the stolen items stolen from the hotel/plaint schedule premises of the respondent by the petitioner no.1 and direct the SHO of Moodabidri to release the same in favour of the Respondent. The Learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, without holding enquiry passed an ex-parte order dated 15/10/2020 allowing the application filed by the Respondent 6 herein under section 94 of Cr.P.C and directed the SHO of Moodabidri P.S to search and seize the stolen articles and return the same to the Respondent. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner no-1 preferred writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 14003/2020 praying to quash the said order, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to grant an interim order of stay by an order dated 04/12/2020. The Respondent then sarted trying to illegally trespass and dispossess petitioner no.2 from the plaint schedule property which is legally occupied by him. In caution to the same, the petitioner no-2 on 20/01/2021 filed application as per I.A. No.X under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 r/w section 151 of CPC for temporary injunction against the respondent – plaintiff. Both I.A. No. II & X were taken up by the trial court for hearing and as per impugned common order dated 26/03/2021 allowed the I.A.No.II filed by Plaintiff- Respondent and consequently dismissed I.A.No.X filed by the Defendant No.2/Petitioner No.2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this court. 4. Heard counsels on both the sides. 7 5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that Trial Court while passing the impugned order has invoked the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 which is incorrect and without jurisdiction as the said Act is not applicable to the case at hand. 6. It was also contended that the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 itself provides for summary eviction. In accordance with the powers vested with the petitioner no-1 panchayath under the provisions of the said Act, the panchayat issued a letter to the police and Mahazar was prepared on 09/10/2020 and the possession was taken. 7. It was further contended that the Trial Court having invoked the provision of Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974, the suit itself ought to have been dismissed on the ground of bar on jurisdiction of the civil court to adjudicate the said issue and if the respondent was aggrieved by the order/notice of petitioner no.1 panchayath, then the only remedy under the said Act was an appeal before the District Judge having jurisdiction over the issue as per Section 10 of the said Act. 8 8. It was also contended that if the impugned order is not set aside, the petitioners will suffer irreparably and will ultimately result in miscarriage of justice. 9. It can be observed from the impugned order that the trial court after considering the provisions, i.e., Section 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1974, came to the conclusion that if the defendant wanted to evict the plaintiff in the case with due process of law, the defendant has to show that the competent officer has followed procedure as per Section 3 of the Act by issuing the notice to the plaintiff compelling him to vacate the premises with in a particular time and it’s the duty of the defendant to give an opportunity before passing the final order. Only after hearing the plaintiff and passing the order, if occupant is still in possession of the property, then force can be used as contemplated under section – 5. As per Section 5(2) of the Act, 40 days time shall be given to vacate the premises. 10. It can be further observed that the trial court has come to the finding that 1st notice was issued by the defendant on 19.09.2020, 2nd notice was issued on 24.09.2020 and final notice was issued on 28.09.2020 and no order was passed by competent 9 officer. The Trial court further came to a finding that, from 19.09.2020 the 40 days ends on 29.10.2020, however, in the case at hand plaintiff was evicted on 09.10.2020 whereby it is clear that due process has not been followed. 11. The trial Court by relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in (1997) 1 SCC 68, came to a conclusion that if the competent authority has not followed the due process, civil court can compel the authority to follow the procedure. 12. The trial Court relied upon another judgment of this Court reported in ILR 1995 KAR 183, wherein it was held that under Section 16 of the Act, person in settled possession though unlawful, dispossession even by true owner be resort to due process of law and suit against dispossession except under the provisions of the Act. 13. Ultimately, by relying on the above judgments, came to the conclusion that the defendant has not followed the procedure under the law and therefore plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience also lies in his favour. 10 14. As far as the irreparable injury to the plaintiff is concerned, Trial Court on the basis of finding that the defendant has not followed the due process, trial court concluded that it has power to direct the defendant to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff. Finally, by observing that the plaintiff is the only bread earner of the family, trial court concluded that it is necessary to direct the 2nd defendant to handover the vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff without delay. 15. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on perusal of the material on record and on perusing the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it is observed that the Trial Court while passing the common order in I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule I and II r/w Section 151 of CPC praying to restrain the defendant No.1 and all officials claiming through it from dispossessing the plaintiff from the plaint A schedule property without due process of law till disposal of the suit and other benefits and similarly I.A.No.10 filed by the defendant No.2, the Trial Court confirmed to appreciate the contents on I.A.No.2 but not I.A.No.10. Further, it is observed that while allowing the I.A.No.1 by using powers under Section 151 of CPC the 2nd defendant is directed to hand over the vacant 11 possession of the plaint schedule premises to the plaintiff immediately. The 1st defendant is at liberty to evict the plaintiff following the due process of law. Once the possession of the plaintiff is restored, the 1st defendant and all officials claiming through it are hereby restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the plaint A schedule building with due process of law till disposal of the suit. I.A.No.10 filed by the 2nd defendant under Order 39 Rule I and II is hereby dismissed. 16. It is observed that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is the order beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court and the trial Court failed to appreciate the provision under Order 39 Rule I and II within the scope of the application, which clearly reveals that the order is in perverse and beyond the scope of jurisdiction, more over the Trial Court failed to consider the relief sought by the plaintiff in the main suit and how the Trial Court by using power under Section 151 directing the defendant No.2 to hand over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule premises to the plaintiff immediately. 17. In view of the above discussions, no doubt the Trial Court went on to appreciate the material on record and passed 12 impugned order passed by the trial Court is beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court and also not in accordance with law. 18. Accordingly, this Court has given following directions: a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The impugned order dated 26.03.2021 passed on I.A.No. II and X in O.S.No. 150/2020 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidri, *is hereby set aside.* c) The trial Court is directed to dispose the IA Nos.II and X in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV *Corrected vide Court order Dt.10-10-2025