- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36945 WP No. 5187 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5187 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. SRIKANTH R DHONGADI S/O R.P. DHONGADI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS CTS NO.472, MARIANA THIMMASAGAR KARWAR ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580024 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAKESH B. BHATT, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S KARNATAKA STATE TEXTILES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) CORPORATE BHAVAN, NO. 26-27, 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR …RESPONDENT (NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 04.03.2021 ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36945 WP No. 5187 of 2021 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider his representation dated 04.03.2021. 2. (i) The petitioner claims that the property described in the schedule was leased by M/s Karnataka Co- operative Textile Mills Dharwad in favour of his father prior to the year 1960. He claims that his father was running a business named, "L.P. Dongadi and Brothers". He claims that the schedule property was a waste land and a big nala ran adjacent to it. He claims that during the year 1969, M/s Karnataka Co-operative Textile Mills Ltd., Dharwad was closed down and subsequently with the permission of the State Government, it was leased to M/s. G. Mahadevappa and Sons, Hubballi. When the petitioner offered to pay rent to M/s G. Mahadevappa and Sons, they refused to take it. Hence, he filed HRC No.263/1972 before the Principal Munsiff, Hubballi under Section 19 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 seeking direction to both M/s Karnataka Co-operative Textile Mills Ltd., as well as M/s. G. Mahadevappa and Sons to accept the rent. The Trial Court directed the petitioner to deposit the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36945 WP No. 5187 of 2021 rent and directed the opponents to settle the dispute amongst themselves and receive the rent. He claims that the Government of India issued a notification dated 30.03.1979 and authorized the State Government to take over management of the said Mills for a period not exceeding five years and extended the same from time to time. Accordingly, the officer appointed by the State Government took over the charge of the moveable and immoveable properties of the mills which were in possession of the lessee with effect from 04.04.1979. (ii) The petitioner contends that as per Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Co-operative Textile Mills (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1986, all rights, title and interest of the lessor and lessee in relation to the mills, shall stand transferred to and shall vest absolutely in the State Government. Accordingly, M/s. Karnataka State Textiles Limited, a wholly owned company of State of Karnataka was formed and the assets of the mill was transferred to the company by way of notification dated 29.12.1987. An Administrator was appointed for carrying on the business of the company. Later, M/s Karnataka State Textiles Limited was ordered to be wound up - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36945 WP No. 5187 of 2021 by this Court in terms of order dated 05.11.1998 passed in COP No.149/1998. In the meanwhile, the Administrator appointed by the State Government had issued notices to the petitioner to vacate the premises, which was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.16380/1994. This Court allowed the said writ petition vide order dated 16.10.1998. Thereafter, again the Administrator passed an order directing the petitioner to vacate the premises, which was again challenged before this Court in W.P.No.13624/1999. The said writ petition was allowed and the order of Administrator was quashed. However, liberty was reserved to the Administrator to proceed against the petitioner for eviction only in accordance with law. The petitioner claims that he continued the business and was in settled possession of the property and is carrying on the business for over 61 years. The petitioner claims that the respondent again issued a notice on 21.01.2021 calling upon him to vacate the schedule property. The petitioner submitted a representation to respondent on 04.03.2021 contending that he was in possession of the schedule property for over 60 years and therefore, was in settled possession and cannot be evicted. He also claimed that he was in adverse possession of the property - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36945 WP No. 5187 of 2021 and therefore, requested the respondent to execute the sale deed in his favour by receiving the market value of the property as sale consideration. He claims that his representation is not considered and therefore, he is before this Court praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider his representation. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the representation is not considered for nearly four years, he is not able to establish whether the respondent is under a statutory duty or obligation to convey the property which was given to his father by way of lease. Therefore, unless it is established that the respondent is bound under any statute to convey the property to the petitioner, no mandamus could be issued to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43