- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7912 WP No. 103891 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103891 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. IRANNA S/O. TIRKAPPA GOULI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SHOP NO.1, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104. 2. GULAMALI SHAH S/O. ABDUL REHMAN HAZARESHAH, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SHOP NO.3, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104. 3. DHANNAPPA S/O. SANNASIDDHAPPA GANTER, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SHOP NO.4, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104. 4. SAROJA W/O. RUDRAPPA CHAKRASALI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SHOP NO.5, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104. 5. RANGANAGOUDA S/O. SHIVANNAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SHOP NO.6, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104. 6. BASAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SHOP NO.9, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104. 7. MAHADEVAPPA S/O. VEERUPAKSHAPPA HEBBAL, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7912 WP No. 103891 of 2025 R/O. SHOP NO.5, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI 581110. 3. THE TALUK PANCHAYAT, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 4. THE TALUK PANCHAYAT, HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104, BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE (i) A WRIT IN A NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 10.06.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN NO. THAPAMHA/TA.PAM.KA/VAHI- 382/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE B, NO. THAPAMHA/TA.PAM.KA/ VAHI-384/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE C, NO. THAPAMHA/ TA.PAM.KA/VAHI-385/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE D, NO. THAPAMHA/TA.PAM.KA/VAHI-386/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE E, NO. THAPAMHA/TA.PAM.KA/VAHI-387/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE F, NO. THAPAMHA/TA.PAM.KA/VAHI-390/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE G, NO. THAPAMHA/TA.PAM.KA/VAHI- 391/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE H. (ii) A WRIT IN A NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 TO FOLLOW DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES ACT AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7912 WP No. 103891 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2/State as well as the learned counsel Sri M.M.Khannur, appearing for respondents No.3 and 4. 2. Petitioners are before this Court challenging the order passed by the 3rd respondent by issuance of impugned notices dated 10.06.2025 for eviction of the petitioners from the properties in question. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that they are tenants of shops bearing Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 at Taluka Panchayat Complex, Hangal since from more than 15 years. Their tenancy was extended for a period of 3 years from 2020-21. 4. This being the state of affairs, respondent No.3 passed an order of eviction on 27.09.2023 directing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7912 WP No. 103891 of 2025 petitioners to vacate their premises. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners approached the District Court by way of appeal under Section 10 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short, ‘the Act’). The appellate Court vide order dated 02.12.2024 allowed the appeal of the petitioners and remanded the matter back to the 3rd respondent to consider the matter in accordance with law by setting aside the order of eviction passed under Section 5 of the Act. Pursuant to remand, respondent No.3 issued notices dated 10.06.2025 to vacate the premises within 7 days, failing which appropriate action will be taken for eviction. It is this eviction notice that is questioned by the petitioners on the following grounds. 5. It is contended that the impugned notice of eviction is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and liable to be quashed. It is further contended that the 3rd respondent has not followed the due process of law and without authority and knowledge of respondent No.4, proceedings - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7912 WP No. 103891 of 2025 are initiated. Respondent No.3 has not adhered to the directions issued by the appellate authority Court i.e., the District Court. Therefore, the entire action of respondent No.3 in issuing notice of eviction as per Annexures-B, C, D, E, F, G and H, which is illegal and contrary to law. It is also contended that respondent No.3 has not given a fair opportunity of hearing, no oral evidence is recorded, and no documents were taken and without following the directions of the District Court has passed the impugned order. Therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. 6. Per Contra, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri M.M.Khannur for respondents No.3 and 4 vehemently contend that the petition itself is not maintainable. The impugned order is a notice of eviction, pursuant to the enquiry conducted by respondent No.3 on remand by the learned District Judge, notices were ordered and as petitioners did not approach the respondents neither adduced any evidence nor placed any material before passing the order of eviction. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7912 WP No. 103891 of 2025 7. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that in case petitioners are aggrieved by said notices of eviction, the remedy is available to the petitioners to prefer an application by challenging the same in the manner known to law and not before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the in earlier round of litigation petitioners questioned the order of eviction by filing a miscellaneous appeal, hence the petitioners aggrieved by these notices of eviction are at liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law. On all these grounds he seeks for dismissal of the petition. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record. 9. It is seen that petitioners are tenants and in occupation of the premises belonging to the 3rd respondent. The order of eviction passed was challenged - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7912 WP No. 103891 of 2025 before the Principal District Judge of Haveri, which came to be allowed and the impugned order of eviction was set aside and matter was remanded back to the Chief Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat for fresh consideration and a direction was also given to provide sufficient opportunity to both parties for production of oral evidence and documents required and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by adhering to the observations made by the appellate Court. 10. It is seen that pursuant to the order of remand, the present order of eviction is passed by the 3rd respondent relying on a Judgment in Writ Petition No.15198/2021, which is not placed before this Court. The tenure of notice of eviction does not fairly state as to whether the recording of evidence and so also opportunities having been given to petitioners and documents having been taken on record and if petitioners have participated pursuant to notice so issued by the 3rd respondent, same is silent in the order and the notice of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7912 WP No. 103891 of 2025 eviction. Be that as it may, notices so issued by the 3rd respondent are questioned before this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am in agreement with the learned counsel Sri M.M.Khannur and learned AGA appearing for respondents that present petition would not be maintainable before this Court as petitioners will have to challenge these notices of eviction before the appropriate authority in the manner known to law, rather than approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. It is not the case of petitioners that there is no jurisdiction for respondent No.3 to pass such an order or there is any violation of fundamental rights. Under the circumstances, there is alternative efficacious remedy available; petitioners will have to exhaust the same before knocking the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is apparently seen that petitioners are tenants of the shops; they have been in occupation in the shops since more than 15 to 20 years. Under the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7912 WP No. 103891 of 2025 circumstances, petitioners will have to be protected till they approach the proper forum/authority/Court to challenge the order/notice of eviction issued by the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, I pass the following : ORDER (i) This petition is disposed off as not maintainable before this Court. (ii) Petitioners are at liberty to approach the appropriate authority/Court/forum to challenge the order passed by the 3rd respondent in the manner known to law. Two weeks time is granted to petitioners to approach the appropriate authority. (iii) Respondents shall not evict the petitioners till deciding the application for interim prayer by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7912 WP No. 103891 of 2025 (iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28