- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50572 WP No. 37748 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.37748 OF 2014 (GM-PP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHIVAPPA S/O CHIKKEERAIAH, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 1(a). SMT. SHEELA W/O LATE SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 1(b). SMT. PALLAVI S. D/O LATE SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 1(c). SRI. GANESH DEVAN S/O LATE SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT VEERABHADRESWAR AUTO MOBILES & PHOTO FRAME WORKS V.V. ROAD MANDYA CITY - 571 401. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50572 WP No. 37748 of 2014 MANDYA CITY-571 401. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA CITY-571 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 19.2.2014 IN PPA NO.3/2007 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, MANDYA, VIDE ANNEXURE-D; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 21.7.2014 IN M.A.NO.4/2014 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA VIDE ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. In this Writ Petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 21.07.2014 in M.A.No.4/2014, on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya and the order dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50572 WP No. 37748 of 2014 19.02.2014 in PPA No.3/2007-08 on the file of the respondent No.2. 2. Heard Sri. V. Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the notice which has been issued by respondent - authorities is not maintainable as the land in question is not unauthorisedly occupied by the petitioners and does not come within the purview of Public Premises as per the provision contained under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1997, and therefore, since the schedule property is the ancestral property of the petitioners, both the authorities have committed an error in passing the order of eviction against the petitioner and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that a school building is constructed in the schedule premises and the premises of the building is being utilised by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50572 WP No. 37748 of 2014 children of Government school for playground and therefore, the property in question belonged to the Government and therefore, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the action of the respondent - authorities. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute with regard to the fact that respondent - authorities have issued the notice under S.4(1) of the Act on the ground that the schedule property is being utilised by the Government school children who are using the vacant land for playground. In this regard, on careful consideration of the order passed in M.A.No.4/2014 would indicate that, the petitioner herein is claiming property in question through adverse possession and same was negated by the competent court in M.A.No.4/2014. The petitioner, in one breath is seeking relief stating that the schedule land is ancestral property, and on the other hand, arguing that the petitioner has right by adverse possession and these two contentions cannot go together. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners herein have not produced any material on record to substantiate right - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50572 WP No. 37748 of 2014 over the property in question, no interference is called for in this Writ Petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10