- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1005 OF 2022 (GM-PP) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 12812 OF 2021 (GM-PP) WRIT PETITION NO. 15513 OF 2021 (GM-PP) WRIT PETITION NO. 923 OF 2022 (GM-PP) WRIT PETITION NO. 960 OF 2022 (GM-PP) WRIT PETITION NO. 981 OF 2022 (GM-PP) WRIT PETITION NO. 985 OF 2022 (GM-PP) WRIT PETITION NO. 1031 OF 2022 (GM-PP) WRIT PETITION NO. 1157 OF 2022 (GM-PP) WRIT PETITION NO. 1172 OF 2022 (GM-PP) WRIT PETITION NO. 1300 OF 2022 (GM-PP) WRIT PETITION NO. 3021 OF 2022 (GM-PP) IN WP No. 1005/2022 BETWEEN: SRI. G. KANTHILAL S/O LATE GISSULAL AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S RAJASHREE ENTERPRISES SHOP NO.10, SRI KAREKAL ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE PREMISES, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 018 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MUZARAI WORKS, CITY DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, VISVESWARAIAH TOWERS, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESWARA BHAVANA, A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R.ANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE NO.PPA:CR:26/2014-15 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES ACT, RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN AND IN MA NO.16/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 76) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 23.01.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 76) IN MA NO.16/2015 AND ETC. IN WP NO. 12812/2021 BETWEEN: SMT. GAYATHRI PADMANABHA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE M.R. ANANTHAPADMANABHA SRINIVASA MEDICALS SHOP NO.6, SRI KAREKAL ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE PREMISES, OPPOSITE VINAYAKA THEATRE, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560018. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MUZARAI WORKS, CITY DIVISION, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS PODIUM BLOCK, VISWESWARAYA TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENT'S, 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESWARA BAVANA, A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE - 560 018 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R.ANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. SRINIVAS KUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A, AN ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.PPA CR 22/2014-15 DATED 11.05.2015 ORDERING EVICTION OF THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 5 OF "THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS, ACT, 1974), CONFIRMED BY THE XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE IN M.A.17 OF 2015 DATED 23.01.2020 PASSED AT ANNEXURE-A1 AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO HOLD ENQUIRY BY GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY. IN WP NO. 15513/2021: BETWEEN: DR. M. SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS S/O LATE M. RAGHUNATHA RAO SRINIVASA CLINIC SHOP NO.6, SRI KAREKAL ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE PREMISES, OPPOSITE VINAYAKA THEATRE, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560018. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MUZARAI WORKS, CITY DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, VISWESWARAYA TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENT'S, 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESWARA BAVANA, A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE - 560 018 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R.ANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A AN ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.PPA CR 21/2014-15 DATED 11.05.2015 ORDERING EVICTION OF THE APPELLATE UNDER SECTION 5 OF "THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1974", CONFIRMED BY THE LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE IN MA 15/2015 DATED 23.01.2020 PASSED AT ANENXURE-A1 AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO HOLD ENQUIRY BY GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY. IN WP NO. 923/2022: BETWEEN: SRI. R. VEERABADRASWAMY S/O LATE H.S. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF VEERABADRA TEA SHOP, SHOP NO.18 SRI KAREKAL ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE PREMISES, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560018. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MUZARAI WORKS, CITY DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, VISVESWARAIAH TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESWARA BHAVANA, A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. ANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE NO.PPA:CR:34/2014-15 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES ACT, RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN AND IN MA NO.24/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 76) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 23.01.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-76) IN MA NO.24/2015. IN WP NO. 960/2022: BETWEEN: SRI. IN WP NO. 960/2022: BETWEEN: SRI. M. SELVANATHAN S/O LATE V. MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S VINAYAKA BANGLE STORES, SHOP NO.3 SRI KAREKAL ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE PREMISES, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560018. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MUZARAI WORKS, CITY DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, VISVESWARAIAH TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESWARA BHAVANA, A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R.ANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE NO.PPA:CR:19/2014-15 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES ACT, RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN AND IN MA.NO.29/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-76) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 23.01.2020 ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 76) IN M.A.NO.29/2015 AND ETC. IN WP NO. 981/2022 BETWEEN: SRI. H. BALAKRISHNA S/O LATE S. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S HBR GENTS BEAUTY PARLOUR, SHOP NO. 2 SRI KAREKAL ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE PREMISES, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560018. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MUZARAI WORKS, CITY DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, VISVESWARAIAH TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESWARA BHAVANA, A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R.ANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE NO.PPA:CR:18/2014-15 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES ACT, RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN AND IN MA.NO.28/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-76) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 23.01.2020 ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 76) IN M.A.NO.28/2015 AND ETC. IN WP NO. 985/2022 BETWEEN: SRI. MARIGUDDAIAH S/O LATE GUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF 'VADIRAJA CONDIMENTS', SHOP NO.8 SRI KAREKAL ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE PREMISES, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 018 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MUZARAI WORKS, CITY DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, VISVESWARAIAH TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESWARA BHAVANA, A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R.ANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE NO.PPA:CR:23/2014-15 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES ACT, RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN AND IN MA.NO.18/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-76) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 23.01.2020 (ANNEXURE-J) PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 76) IN M.A.NO.18/2015 AND ETC. IN WP NO. 1031/2022: BETWEEN: SRI. IN WP NO. 1031/2022: BETWEEN: SRI. SANDEEP S/O SRI KANTHILAL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S ARCHANA ELECTRICALS, SHOP NO.07 SRI KAREKAL ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE PREMISES, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 018 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MUZARAI WORKS, CITY DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, VISVESWARAIAH TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESWARA BHAVANA, A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R.ANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE NO.PPA:CR:24/2014-15 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES ACT, RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN AND IN MA.NO.19/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-76) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 23.01.2020 (ANNEXURE-J) PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-76) IN M.A.NO.19/2015 AND ETC. IN WP NO. 1157/2022: BETWEEN: SMT. R. GOWRAMMA W/O SRI M. MAHADEVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF VEERESH TEA PACKING, SHOP NO.14 SRI KAREKAL ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE PREMISES, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560018 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MUZARAI WORKS, CITY DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, VISVESWARAIAH TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESWARA BHAVANA, A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. ANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE NO.PPA:CR:30/2014-15 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES ACT, RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN AND IN MA.NO.22/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-76) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 23.01.2020 (ANNEXURE-J) PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-76) IN M.A.NO.22/2015 AND ETC. IN WP NO. 1172/2022: BETWEEN: SRI R. JAGADEESH S/O LATE H.S. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF VEERESH TEA TRADERS, SHOP NO.11 SRI KAREKAL ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE PREMISES, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560018 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MUZARAI WORKS, CITY DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, VISVESWARAIAH TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESWARA BHAVANA, A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. ANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE NO.PPA:CR:27/2014-15 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES ACT, RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN AND IN MA.NO.20/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-76) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 23.01.2020 (ANNEXURE-J) PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-76) IN M.A.NO.20/2015 AND ETC. IN WP NO. 1300/2022: BETWEEN: SRI. IN WP NO. 1300/2022: BETWEEN: SRI. R. RAJASHEKAR S/O LATE H.S. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S VEERESH TEA TRADERS, SHOP NO.9, SRI KAREKAL ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE PREMISES MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560018 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MUZARAI WORKS, CITY DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, VISVESWARAIAH TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESWARA BHAVANA, A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R.ANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE NO.PPA:CR:25/2014-15 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES ACT, RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN AND IN MA.NO.23/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-76) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 23.01.2020 (ANNEXURE-J) PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-76) IN M.A.NO.23/2015 AND ETC. IN WP NO. 3021/2022 BETWEEN: SRI. RAMAMURTHY SON OF ADDAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT SHOP NO.12, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS SRI KAREKAL ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE PREMISES MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560018 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MUZARAI WORKS, CITY DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, VISVESWARAIAH TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESWARA BHAVANA, A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHCHANDRA M., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE NO.PPA:CR:28/2014-15 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES ACT, RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN AND IN MA.NO.21/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-11) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 22.07.2021 (ANNEXURE-H) PASSED BY THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-11) IN M.A.NO.21/2015 AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners in all these writ petitions have challenged the orders of eviction passed by the Estate Officer in petitions filed under Sections 4(1) and 5 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1974') and the consequent orders passed by the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in appeals filed under Section 10 of the Act, 1974. 2. (i) All the petitioners contend that they are in occupation of portions of the property bearing CTS No.380 of Shri Karekal Anjaneya Swamy Temple situate on Mysore road. The petitioners contend that they were tenants in occupation since very long time and were paying monthly rents. They claimed that the earlier tenant one Mr. R. Muddappa had a registered agreement with the respondent No.1 and had constructed shops and rented out to various persons including the petitioners. The petitioners therefore, claimed that they are in authorized occupation of the portion of the aforesaid property. They contend that respondent No.1 had filed - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS petitions under Sections 4(1) and 5 of the Act, 1974 seeking eviction of the petitioners from the petition schedule property on the ground that they are in unauthorized occupation. It is claimed that Executive Officer of the temple had initiated proceedings against the petitioners and that the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. (ii) The petitioners in all petitions except petitioners in W.P.Nos.15513/2021 and 12812/2021 contend that the respondent No.2 caused undated notice/s in Form - A requiring them to appear before the Authorized Officer on 06.04.2015 and submit their defence. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.15513/2021 and 12812/2021 contend that notices dated 20.03.2015 in Form - A were issued requiring them to appear on 06.04.2015 and submit their defence. The petitioners appeared on 06.04.2015 and requested time to engage their advocate/s and accordingly cases were adjourned to 08.04.2015, on which day, the petitioners appeared and sought time to file objections. Later, the cases were adjourned to 10.04.2015 and thereafter to 16.04.2015 for filing objections. On 16.04.2015, again a request was made for - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS adjournment to file objections and Authorized Officer adjourned the cases to 27.04.2015 for arguments and thereafter to 28.04.2015. Again on 28.04.2015, the advocate/s for petitioners sought time to file objections which was refused and the arguments of the respondent No.1 was heard and the cases were posted to 07.05.2015 for hearing the arguments of the petitioners. Again on 07.05.2015, the petitioners in all cases except in W.P.Nos.1157/2022 and 3021/2022 sought ten days time to file objections by filing applications under Order XVII Rule 1 of CPC, which were rejected and the cases were listed for orders. The Authorized Officer then passed the final order/s dated 11.05.2015 and 04.06.2015 directing the petitioners herein to vacate the petition schedule property within forty five days from the date of the orders, failing which, the petitioners would be evicted using minimum force. The petitioners thereafter challenged the said orders in statutory appeals under Section 10 of the Act, 1974. The City Civil Court considered the contentions and rejected the appeals. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners are before this Court. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that under Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, 1974, the respondent No.2 is required to issue a ten days notice but in the instant case, the petitioners were required to appear on 06.04.2015. He contends that failure to comply with the mandatory provision vitiates the proceedings and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.2 are liable to be set at nought. He further contends that the notice should also set out the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made and since it is not done in the instant case, the impugned orders are vitiated. He further contends that though the time was sought to file objections, the respondent No.2 acted hastily in posting the cases for orders and also in passing the orders directing eviction of the petitioners. He contends that this violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.2 are liable to be set aside. He also referred to Rules 4 and 5(2) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Rules, 1980 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 1980') and contended that it was incumbent upon the respondent No.2 to record evidence which is akin to a summary - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS inquiry under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and since the same is not done, the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 are faulty and deserve to be set aside. In support of these contentions, he relied upon the following judgments: (i) M/s. Blaze and Central (P.) Ltd., vs. Union of India and others [AIR 1980 KAR 186] (ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nusli Neville Wadia and another [AIR 2008 SC 876] (iii) Madarbi vs. Mulla Sab Mardan Sab [ILR 1996 KAR 1674] (iv) Sandamma vs. State of Karnataka [2015 (1) Kar.LJ 73] 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that ten days prior notice was given to the petitioners and therefore, it is in compliance with Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, 1974. She contends that the petitioners did not raise this as a ground in appeals preferred before the City Civil Court. As a matter of fact, the petitioners in all cases except petitioners in W.P.Nos.15513/2021 and 12812/2021 have not disclosed when the notices in Form - A were served on - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS them and therefore, the ground raised by the petitioners was clearly an afterthought. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.15513/2021 and 12812/2021 have enclosed the notice in Form - A which shows that it was dated 20.03.2015 and the date of hearing was on 06.04.2015 and therefore, ten days prior notice was issued. She contends that the petitioners have claimed that they were inducted in portions of the premises by Mr. R. Muddappa, who had a registered agreement of lease. She has placed on record a copy of the lease agreement which shows that Mr. R. Muddappa was given the right to construct shops in the property belonging to the temple. However, he was specifically restrained from subletting any portion to any person. She therefore, contends that the petitioners are all unauthorized occupants of portions of the property belonging to the temple. She contends that if this was the defence of the petitioners, the respondent No.2 was right in passing the impugned orders of eviction and the City Civil Court was also justified in upholding the same. In so far as violation of Rule 5(2) of the Rules, 1980, she contends that the petitioners did not file any objections and there was no disputed question of fact and hence, respondent No.2 was justified in proceeding to - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS pass orders directing the eviction of the petitioners. Therefore, she contends that the contentions urged by the petitioners do not merit consideration and the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.2 and confirmed by the City Civil Court may be upheld. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2 supported the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and submitted that the premises in question undisputedly belonged to a notified temple and averments made in the writ petitions clearly establish that the petitioners are claiming to be sub-tenants under Mr. R. Muddappa. He contends that the lease deed executed in favour of Mr. R. Muddappa did not authorize him to sublet portions of the premises to third parties and therefore, the petitioners are all unauthorized occupants. Thus, he contends that the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.2 are just and proper and no interference is warranted. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS the respondent No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2. 7. The respondent No.1 had initiated the proceedings before the competent authority and Estate Officer namely, Head Quarter Assistant to Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Commissioner for eviction of the petitioners under Sections 4(1) and 5 of the Act, 1974. These petitions were filed by the respondent No.1 on 05.02.2015. Notices in Form - A were issued requiring the petitioners to appear on 06.04.2015. Though the Form - A issued to petitioners in all cases except the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15513/2021 and 12812/2021 did not bear the date, the petitioners who had raised a contention that the notices were not in accordance with Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, 1974, must have stated the date on which the said notices was served on them. Unfortunately, in the writ petitions the concerned petitioners have not disclosed about the date of service of notice. However, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15513/2021 and 12812/2021 have stated that notices in Form - A were dated 20.03.2015. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS ten days prior notice was not served on them is without any basis. The contention that Form - A did not conform to Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, 1974, was not raised before the City Civil Court in appeals filed under Section 10 of the Act, 1974. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners in these writ petitions that the notices in Form - A did not subscribe to Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, 1974, is clearly an afterthought and hence, the said contention do not merit consideration. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Blaze and Central (P.) Ltd., and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., referred supra, relied upon by the petitioners are distinguishable on facts. 8. In so far as the claim of the petitioners that they were not granted sufficient opportunity to file objections to the petitions, the order sheets which are placed on record indicates that the petitioners were represented by advocate/s and that repeated adjournments were sought for filing objections. The petitioners were accommodated sufficiently by the Authorized Officer and despite granting adequate opportunities, the same - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS were not utilized. Therefore, the petitioners cannot allege that the proceedings are in violation of principles of nature justice. 9. As far as claim of the petitioners that they are in authorized occupation and therefore, they had the right to defend the proceedings, the writ petitions disclose that the petitioners claim that they were inducted into the premises by Mr. R. Muddappa, who had a registered lease agreement. It appears from the lease agreement, which is furnished by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the said Mr. R. Muddappa was permitted to put up construction but was not authorized to sublet the premises to third parties including the petitioners. If that be so, the petitioners were not lawfully inducted into the premises and were unauthorized occupants of portions of the property which belonged to a notified temple. Since the petitioners have not denied the service of notice/s in Form - A and since they did not file any objection to the petitions, the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.2 were just and proper and no interference is warranted with the said orders. Similarly, the learned Civil Judge has looked into the material placed before him and has rightly come to the - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33343 WP No. 1005 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12812 of 2021 WP No. 15513 of 2021 AND 9 OTHERS conclusion that there was no need to interfere with the orders passed by the respondent No.2. 10. In that view of the matter, all these petitions lack merit and are dismissed. 11. The petitioners in these petitions are granted forty five days time to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property in their occupation, failing which, the respondent No.1 is at liberty to use required force to evict the petitioners from the property. It is made clear that the petitioners shall pay rent up to date as agreed till they vacate the premises. 12. In view of disposal of the writ petitions, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36