- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 62112 OF 2016 (GM-PP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NAGARAJA BHATTARU SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 1.1 SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, W/O SRI. NAGARAJA BHATTARU 1.2. SRI. SHESHADRI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 1.3. SRI. RAMESH BABU N AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 1.4. SMT. ASHA RANI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O SRI. PRAKASH PETITIONER NO.1 IS THE WIFE AND PETITIONER NOs.2 TO 4 ARE THE CHILDREN OF DECEASED PETITIONER SRI. NAGARAJA BHATTARU PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.2/3 TEMPLE STREET, B.R. HILLS, YELANDUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571441 AMENDMENT OF THE CAUSE TITLE CARRIED OUT IN OPEN COURT AS PER THE ORDERS PASSED ON IA NO.1 AND 2. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUBHASH S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION, KOLLEGALA-571 441 2. THE TAHSILDAR YELANDUR TALUK YELANDUR -571441 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MA 2/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR AND QUASH THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2016 PASSED IN MA 2/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR VIDE ANNEXURE-T DISMISSING THE MISC. APPEAL 2/2013 AND ETC. 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 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 22.11.2016 passed in M.A. No.2/2013 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar and has prayed that the appeal be allowed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 2. (i) The petitioner contends that the property bearing assessment No.2/3 comprising of a tiled house measuring east - west 30 feet, north - south 60 feet and a site measuring east - west 150 feet and north - south 120 feet situated at B.R.Hills, Yellandur taluk was owned by his great grandfather - Sri. Venkatakrishna Bhattaru. (ii) He claims that his ancestors were rendering services in B.R.Hills temple prior to 1875. He claims that from the year 1925 till 1986 his father was rendering service in the temple and from the year 1986 he was rendering service as an Archak and Agamika till the year 2010. He claimed that in the year 2010, he requested Muzrai department to permit him to transfer 'Arachakship' in favour of his elder son which was accordingly granted. Since then, his elder son is serving in the temple as an Archak, while he is continuing as Agamika Pandith. (iii) He contends that his Highness the Maharaja of Mysore in terms of a Government order bearing No.1200-02- MUZ-177-37-2 dated 26.02.1938 declared an area measuring 22,640 acres 12 guntas or 35.31 sq.miles of land situated in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 the village of Sri Biligiri Ranganathaswami Betta as reserved for the purposes of management of the temple as per Section 35(iii) of the Mysore Forest Act 1990. (iv) He contends that prior to this Government order, the inhabitants of the hills and the temple staff were using the lands covered under the said Government order for various purposes such as, residence, cultivation, cattle grazing etc., He contends that those who were serving in the temple, had constructed dwelling houses and were residing along with their families. He contends that the State Government thought it fit to recognize the possession and enjoyment of occupants and users of the land and accordingly, accommodated them under the Government Order dated 26.02.1938 by granting several concessions. (v) He contends that the Government vide gazette notification published in Part IV (2) (r) dated 01.10.1942 granted 130 acres of land, over which, dwelling houses of the temple servants were situated for their enjoyment and cultivation of mulberry by the sericulture department. He contends that his Great grandfather passed away at the age of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 90 years and his son - Sri. Narayana Bhattaru i.e., the grandfather of petitioner continued in possession of the house (subject property) and was rendering service to the temple and after his death, his son - Sri. Shesha Bhattaru i.e., the father of petitioner rendered service in temple until he died on 12.11.1989. (vi) He contends that after the death of his father, he sought for transfer of Khata to his name and approached the respondent No.1, who directed Grama Panchayat to transfer the Khata. Accordingly, the Khata was transferred in the name of the petitioner. He contends that from the year 1952, the Gram Panchayat was collecting property tax. He contends that since the accommodation was not sufficient, he intended to put up an additional construction and therefore, approached Gram Panchayath and obtained a licence and plan to put up construction. While, he was in the process of putting up construction, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 attempted to stop the construction and dispossessed him from the property. The petitioner therefore filed a suit in O.S.51/2004 which was decreed against the State of Karnataka and respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 (vii) He contends that in the said suit the respondents filed a written statement admitting that the petitioner was an Archak in the temple and that the house in question belonging to the Muzrai department was given to him for residence. He therefore, contends that even according to the respondents, the possession of the property in question by the petitioner was authorized and lawful. (viii) He contends that despite the judgment and decree of perpetual injunction, the respondent No.2 complained to the respondent No.1 that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the schedule property and requested him to pass orders to evict the petitioner. The respondent No.1 acting on the complaint, held an enquiry and ordered eviction of the petitioner vide order dated 16.02.2008. The petitioner questioned the said order before the District Court in M.A.73/2008. The District Court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the respondent No.1 for fresh disposal in accordance with law vide order dated 15.09.2008. (ix) Later the respondent No.1 issued a notice of enquiry under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1974' for short). The petitioner filed statement of objections and the list of documents before the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 filed his rejoinder. Following, this respondent No.1 held proceedings from time to time. The petitioner filed an application Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of Civil Procedure Code. The respondent No.2 however did not file any objections and though the petitioner was present on all dates of hearing and requested the respondent No.1 to decide the application, he adjourned the proceedings for pronouncement of the order. However, no date was given which made the petitioner to believe that the case is adjourned for pronouncement of the order on the interim application. (x) He contends that he came to know that the incumbent officer of respondent No.1 was transferred and he enquired whether the order was ready for pronouncement or not. When he did not get any response from the respondents, he submitted an application on 06.02.2013 seeking for a copy of the order sheet. He contends that he had a hint that order was passed but the concerned clerk was deliberately withholding the information. The petitioner therefore filed an - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 application for getting the certified copy of the order and was shocked to know that the order was passed on 27.11.2012 itself directing the eviction of the petitioner from the property. He contends that this order was antedated to seem as if it was passed prior to the transfer of the incumbent officer. He also contends that the order sheet did not bear any reference to the interim application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the proceedings. He also contends that the respondent No.1 had referred to several documents in his order which was not known to the petitioner and he had no occasion to examine any of those documents. None the less, he challenged the order passed by the respondent No.1 in a statutory appeal filed under Section 10(2)(c) of Act, 1974 in M.A. No.2/2013 before the District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar. The appeal was dismissed in terms of an order dated 22.11.2016. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar in M.A.No.2/2013 and he also prayed the this Court to allow the appeal. 3. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proceedings under the Act, 1974 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 commences by issuing a show cause notice as contemplated under Section 4 of Act, 1974. However, the notice issued by the respondent No.1 is not in conformity with the mandate prescribed under Section 4 of Act, 1974. Therefore, he contends that the entire proceedings is vitiated and consequently the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 as well as the order passed in M.A No.2/2013 is liable to be set aside. (ii) He contends that the competent authority is bound to ascertain that the premises in question is a public premises and that the person in possession is in unauthorized occupation. He contends that in view of the written statement filed by the respondent No.2, in O.S.No.51/2004, it is clear that the petitioner is not in unauthorized possession but his possession is authorised and lawful. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is without proper application of mind and is liable to be set aside. He also contends that the District Court in M.A.No.73/2008 had specifically held that the order of eviction was not in accordance Sections 4 and 5 Act, 1974 and directed the respondent No.1 to give an opportunity to both the parties to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 adduce evidence in respect of their rival contentions and after hearing both the parties to pass an appropriate order. (iii) He contends that the respondent No.1 without adhering to the above had again passed a one-sided order without conducting any enquiry as prescribed under Section 5 of Act, 1974. He further contends that the question whether the petitioner has a title to the property in question or not, cannot be adjudicated upon by the respondent No.1 and this must be specifically adjudicated upon by the Civil Court. (iv) He also contends that the respondent No.1 as well as the District Court did not advert to the contentions raised by the petitioner and did not give a finding as to how the petitioner was in an unauthorized occupation and also whether the premises was a public premises as defined under the Act, 1974. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 and confirmed by the District Court are palpably erroneous and liable to be quashed. 4. (i) The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.1 who filed an elaborate statement of objections. It is denied that the petitioner is an owner in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 possession of the property in question. It is also denied that the great grandfather of the petitioner owned the property in question and that he constructed a dwelling house over it. It is however, admitted that the ancestors of the petitioner were rendering services in Sri Biligiri ranganathaswamy hills temple and after the death of the petitioner's father, he was rendering service and presently the son of the petitioner is serving as an Archak of the temple while, the petitioner continuous to be an Agamika of the temple. (ii) Further it is contended that his Higness of Maharaj of Mysore was pleased to declare an area measuring an extent of 22,640 acres 12 gutnas or 35.31 sq.miles of land situated in Sri Biligiri ranganathaswami betta as reserved land under Section 35 (iii) of the Mysore Forest Act, 1990 for the purpose of management of temple forest by the Forest Department as per the Government order bearing No.1200-02-MUZ-177-37-02 dated 26.02.1938. In the said order, it was stated that the land 'shall be' "reserved land" for the purpose of management of temple forests by the Forest Department and it was not mentioned that it was reserved for management of the temple. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 (iii) It is contended that the inhabitants of the hill and the temple staff were not using the land covered under the Government order for residence and cultivation. However, it is contended that the department had allowed the temple staff to use the houses for the purpose of residence, as long as they served the temple. Therefore, it is contended that the nature of possession of the temple staff was that of a licencee, whose term was quo terminus with their service in the temple. It is denied that the State Government had recognized the possession and enjoyment of the occupants and users of the land. It is denied that the great grandfather of the petitioner had constructed a dwelling house prior to the gazette notification referred above. However, it is admitted that the petitioner became the Archak and Agamika in the temple but the respondents have denied that the Khata of the property stood in the name of the father of the petitioner and that the respondent No.1 had directed the panchayat to transfer the khata of the property to the name of the petitioner. (iv) It is also denied that the Khata was accordingly made out in the name of the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner by misrepresenting to the authorities and in violation - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 of law had obtained a plan and licence to construct a house over the schedule property. Immediately on coming to know about the intended construction, the respondents stopped the petitioner from doing so. The petitioner filed O.S.No.51/2004 for perpetual injunction and though the respondents contested the suit, the Trial Court decreed it and the defendants in the suit were directed not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law. It is contended that the respondent No.2 complained to the respondent No.1 that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession of the property and sought for orders to evict him. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 held a detailed enquiry and ordered eviction of the petitioner vide order dated 16.02.2008. This was challenged before the District Court in M.A.No.73/2008 which was allowed and the case was remitted back to the respondent No.1 for fresh disposal. It is contended that after remand, the respondent No.1 issued a notice of enquiry under the Act, 1974. The petitioner filed the statement of objections and also produced documents. The petitioner filed an application stating that the respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. None the less, the respondent No.1 passed an order - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 directing eviction of the petitioner vide order dated 01.10.2012. Against the same, the petitioner filed M.A.2/2012 which too was dismissed. (v) It is contended that the schedule property belongs to Sri Biligiri ranganathaswami temple which is vested in the Muzrai department. The property in question lies in Sy.No.4/56 which stands in the name of Sri Biligiri ranganathaswami temple. However, the petitioner had unlawfully obtained assessment of the schedule property in his name. It is contended that neither the State Government nor respondents had ever granted the schedule property in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner or the petitioner but were allowed to reside in the house as licencees, as long as they served in the temple. It is contended that even the Deputy commissioner for Inams had not granted any occupancy rights to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is deemed to be in unauthroised possession of the schedule premises and is liable to be evicted. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate reiterated the above contentions and submits that since the petitioner had claimed title to the property, he is deemed to be - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 in unauthorized possession and therefore, he is liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Act, 1974 as the premises in question is a public premise as defined under the Act, 1974. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 and confirmed by the District Court are just and proper and do not warrant any interference. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 7. The order dated 16.02.2008 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 5 of the Act, 1974 was called in question in M.A. No.73/2008. The District Court in terms of its order dated 15.09.2008 had held that though the petitioner has produced several documents to substantiate his contention, respondent No.1 had not taken into consideration those documents. It also held that no enquiry was held on disputed questions of fact and no documents were produced by the respondent No.2 to show how the property belonged to the State Government. It also held that it was incumbent upon the respondent No.1 to give reasons for not accepting the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 contentions of the petitioner. It also held that the respondent No.1 must have held a summary enquiry and must have provided opportunity to both sides to substantiate their contentions. The District Court therefore remitted the case back to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration. 8. Before considering the case on merits, it is first appropriate to deal with the contention whether the petitioner is in authorized or unauthorized occupation of a 'public premises'. The petitioner has admitted that his Highness the Maharaja of Mysore had declared 22640 acres 12 guntas as reserved land, meaning thereby that the property claimed by him was indeed a public premises. The petitioner has claimed that his great grandfather was the owner of the house and that it has come into his possession from his father. On the contrary, the respondent No.2 claimed that the house was given to the Archak for residence, so long as he served the temple. If petitioner was allowed to occupy the house, it is difficult to accept the claim of respondent No.2 that petitioner is in unauthorized occupation, unless the authorization given to him to reside in the premises is withdrawn. It is only then that the occupation of petitioner could be treated as 'unauthorised - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 occupation'. When proceedings are initiated against the petitioner, he is entitled to raise his defence and the respondent No.1 is bound to conduct a summary inquiry as provided under Rule 5 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1980 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 1980'). For immediate reference, 'unauthorised occupation' as defined under Section 2 (g) of the Act, 1974 is extracted below: (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." Rule of 5 of Rules, 1980 reads as follows: "5. Holding of inquiries:-(1) Where any person on whom a notice or order under this Act has been served, desires to be heard through his representative, he should authorize such representative in writing. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 (2) The competent officer shall record the summary of the evidence and any relevant documents filed before him shall form part of the records of the proceedings." 9. The respondent No.1 after remand of the case by the District Court in M.A.No.73/2008, apparently did not conduct an enquiry as required under the Rule 5 of the Rules, 1980. 10. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 indicates that he had relied upon various documents to arrive at the conclusion that the schedule property was a public premises. However the respondent No.1 lost sight of the fact that the enquiry before him was quasi-judicial in nature and had the effect of dispossessing a person from the property. Therefore, he must have provided the petitioner with all the documents that were mentioned in the impugned order. The respondent No.1 was bound to consider the contention of the petitioner that the possession of the schedule premises was with his forefather ever since 1875, by checking whether there were any documents of title or whether the defence raised was justified or not. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 11. Therefore, without going into any other contentions, it would suffice to hold that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is not in compliance with the Rule 5(2) of the Rules, 1960 and accordingly the impugned order by the respondent No.1 and the order passed by the District Court in M.A.No.73/2008 deserves to be quashed and matter requires to be remitted back to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration on the following terms: (i) The writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated dated 27.11.2012 passed in case No.DVS16/2007-08 passed by the respondent No.1 which was confirmed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar in M.A.No.2/2013 vide order dated 22.11.2016 are quashed. (ii) The case is remitted back to the respondent No.1 who shall furnish all documents relied upon by him in his order dated 27.11.2012 to the petitioner. Thereupon, the respondent No.1 shall strictly comply with the procedure - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35909 WP No. 62112 of 2016 contemplated under Rule 5 of Rules, 1980 and thereafter pass appropriate orders. (ii) In order to expedite the process, the petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 30.09.2025 at 03:00 p.m. with all necessary documents. (iii) The respondent No.1 is specifically directed to ensure that the proceedings are disposed off within a period of three months as directed without seeking further time. If the petitioner does not cooperate in the disposal of the case, the respondent No.1 is at liberty to record the same and proceed in accordance with law. (iv) All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36