- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29620 WP No. 53556 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.53556 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI A SAMPANGIRAMAIAH S/O LATE SRI. ABBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.100, 2ND MAIN ROAD, BANNERGHATTA, BENGALURU-560 083. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJIT KALYAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATH, RAJ INSTITUTIONS, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU-560 070. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29620 WP No. 53556 of 2018 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANEKAL TALUK PANCHAYATH ATTIBELE ROAD, ANEKAL, BENGALURU-562 106. 4. THE PRESIDENT ANEKAL TALUK PANCHAYATH ATTIBELE ROAD, ANEKAL, BENGALURU-562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R.1; SRI M.S. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R.3; R.2 AND R.4: SERVED.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-F THE AUCTION NOTICE BEARING NO.KNA/TP/AN:02/2018-19 DATED 23.11.2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER'S SHOP NO.3 AND 4 i.e. THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO THE WRIT PETITION IS CONCERNED, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is said to be in occupation of shops which are described in the schedule to the writ petition. Admittedly, he does not own the same and it belongs to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29620 WP No. 53556 of 2018 respondent No.3. The petitioner further submits that initially he had entered into an oral agreement and subsequently, it was reduced into writing as per the agreement produced at Annexure-'A' to the writ petition. 2. The alleged lease agreement is not registered and the agreement does not prescribe the duration of the lease also. Under the circumstances, it has to be considered to be not valid after a period of one year since its execution. It is also not in dispute that the said agreement was entered in the year 2003. 3. The aforementioned facts establish that the petitioner was put in possession of the writ petition schedule property by respondent No.3. Further, the term of the lease has come to an end. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner is required to vacate the same. If he fails to vacate the same, respondent No.3 is at liberty to have him vacated in the manner known to law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29620 WP No. 53556 of 2018 4. However, in the meanwhile, respondent No.3 has sought to auction the lease hold rights of the shops in favour of third parties. The writ petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the same. As already mentioned above, the petitioner has no subsisting right over the shops concerned. However, he is required to be evicted in the manner known to law. 5. Hence, the writ petition is hereby disposed of reserving liberty to respondent No.3 to have the petitioner vacated (if he is already not vacated) in accordance with law and thereafter, auction the lease hold rights as intended or utilize the property as it deems fit. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52