- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48492 WP No. 35368 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35368 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. RAJESH BALLAL S/O YUVARAJ BALLAL ABGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO 154/A, D. DEVARAJ URS ROAD MYSURU 3 570001 &PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARENDRA D.V. GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE 3 570 001 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MYSURU 3 570 001 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2018, MADE IN NO.MY.NA.PRA/VA.KA-4/18/2000-01 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE, ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48492 WP No. 35368 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.ªÉÄÊ£À¥Áæ/ªÀ.PÀ-4/18/2000-2001 dated 11.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Mysuru Urban Development Authority (8Authority9 for short), by which the order bearing No.¸ÀPÁC3/869/98-99 dated 10.03.1998 passed by the then Superintending Engineer of the Authority allotting the shop bearing No.154-A measuring 4.00 sq. m. situate at Sri D. Devaraj Urs road, Mysuru, (henceforth referred to as 8the shop9) in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the concerned Circle/Zonal Officer of the Authority was directed to take steps for recovery of arrears of rent from the petitioner within the time stipulated therein and to recover physical possession of the said shop from the petitioner forthwith. 2(i). The petitioner claims that he was allotted a shop by the Authority on temporary lease in terms of an order dated 10.09.1998 and that he is conducting business in the shop so allotted. He claimed that the Commissioner, Authority had cancelled the lease of the shop, which was challenged by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48492 WP No. 35368 of 2018 petitioner in W.P. No.8457/2001 and this Court in terms of the order dated 30.03.2001, allowed the writ petition and quashed the cancellation order dated 23.01.2001 passed by the Commissioner and directed the Commissioner to consider the objections filed by the petitioner and permit him to file additional objections, if any, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and consider the same and pass appropriate orders. It is stated that the Authority refused to collect the rent from the petitioner. In this regard, an endorsement was issued by the Special Tahasildar, Authority to the petitioner on 03.06.2010. The Commissioner, Authority pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 30.03.2001 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, issued a notice to the petitioner on 17.04.2017 calling upon him to be present before the Authority on 28.04.2017. The petitioner filed his objection/reply dated 16.05.2017 before the Authority on 20.05.2017. The Commissioner, Authority thereafter issued one more notice on 21.12.2017 to the petitioner and called upon him to be present before it on 29.12.2017. The petitioner reiterated his stand taken in his objection dated 16.05.2017 in his reply pursuant to the notice dated 21.12.2017. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48492 WP No. 35368 of 2018 Commissioner, Authority, by relying upon Section 38 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (henceforth referred to as 8the Act, 19879), in terms of the order dated 11.06.2018, cancelled the order dated 10.03.1998 (stated as 13.03.1998 in para No.6 of the petition) passed by the then Superintending Engineer of the Authority allotting the shop in favour of the petitioner and directed the concerned Zonal/Circle Officer of the Authority to take steps for recovery of arrears of rent from the petitioner within the time stipulated therein and to recover physical possession of the said shop from the petitioner forthwith. (ii). The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was inducted into the shop in question lawfully by the Authority but later it attempted to cancel the allotment on the ground that the same was not in accordance with Section 38 of the Act, 1987 on the premise that pursuant to the application of the petitioner dated 08.09.1998 submitted to the Commissioner, Authority and based on the shara / note - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48492 WP No. 35368 of 2018 of the Commissioner, the Superintending Engineer of the respondent No.1 had without any authority of law rented out the shop in question in favour of the petitioner on temporary basis on 10.03.1998. He contends that if the possession of the petitioner in respect of the shop is unauthorized, then the Commissioner is bound to take steps as provided under Section 74 of the Act, 1987. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.59187-59252/2015 (disposed off on 11.02.2016). 4. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the petitioner had subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Authority, when he filed W.P No.8457/2001, where this Court while allowing the petition, directed the Commissioner, Authority to consider the objections filed by the petitioner and further permitted him to file additional objections, if any and pass appropriate orders. He contends that the Commissioner, therefore, issued fresh notice to the petitioner and thereafter, took steps in accordance with law by passing the impugned order. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner cannot now bank upon Section 74 of the Act, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48492 WP No. 35368 of 2018 1987 and claim that he has to be evicted in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1974'). 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner was granted lease of the shop that belongs to the Authority. It is not in dispute that the lease was not granted by the Authority but was by the Superintending Engineer, which was in violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 38 of the Act, 1987. Therefore, the Commissioner, Authority was authorized in law to put an end to the lease and call upon the petitioner to quit and deliver vacant possession of the shop. The procedure for recovering possession of the premises belonging to the Authority is as provided under Section 74 of the Act, 1987, which reads follows:- "74. Prohibition of unauthorized occupation of land.- (1) Any person who unauthorisedly enters upon and uses or occupies any land belonging to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48492 WP No. 35368 of 2018 authority to the use or occupation of which he is not entitled or has ceased to be entitled, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees. (2) Any person who having unauthorisedly occupied whether before or after the commencement of this Act, any land belonging to the authority to the use or occupation of which he is not entitled, or has ceased to be entitled, fails to vacate such land in pursuance of an order under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (Karnataka Act 32 of 1974) shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees and with a further fine which may extend to fifty rupees per acre of land or part thereof for every day on which the occupation continues after the date of the first conviction for such offence. (3) Whoever intentionally aids or abets the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall, on conviction, be punished with the same punishment provided for such offence under the said sub-sections." 7. The words "unauthorized occupant", thus includes not only a person, who enters possession unauthorisedly but also a person, whose entitlement to continue in the premises had ceased and who fails to vacate the land pursuant to the notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, 1974. 8. The term "unauthorised occupation" under the Act, 1974 is defined as follows: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48492 WP No. 35368 of 2018 "2(g) <unauthorised occupation=, in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises, without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever." 9. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the eviction of the petitioner should be in accordance with the Act, 1974 merits acceptance. 10. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) This petition is allowed in part. The impugned order bearing No.ªÉÄÊ£À¥Áæ/ªÀ.PÀ-4/18/2000- 2001 dated 11.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Mysuru Urban Development Authority quashed. (ii) The Commissioner, Mysuru Urban Development Authority is directed to take out proceedings in accordance with the Karnataka - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48492 WP No. 35368 of 2018 Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 and Section 74 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. (iii) The Commissioner, Mysuru Urban Development Authority shall endeavor to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63