- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41437 WP No. 4317 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4317 OF 2020 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA LINGAYAT EDUCATION SOCIETY COLLEGE ROAD, BELGAUM-590001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI DR. BAPU G. DESAI …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MALUR, MALUR TOWN-563 130 KOLAR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR R.V., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FINAL NOTICE BEARING NO.PUSAMAA/KAMSHAA/CR/01/2019-20 DATED 14.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF A SCHOOL RUN BY THE PETITIONER AT MUNICIPAL KHATHA BEARING Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41437 WP No. 4317 of 2020 NO.2506/1969 MEASURING 252+259/2 X 207 + 212/2 TOGETHER WITH CONSTRUCTION MEASURING 47½ X 56 FEET MANGALORE TILED CONSTRUCTION SITUATED AT MALUR TOWN AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a notice bearing No.¥ÀĸÀªÀiÁ/PÀA±Á/¹Dgï/01/2019-20 dated 14.01.2020 issued by the respondent No.1 by which, it directed the petitioner to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property bearing municipal khata No.2506/1969 measuring 252+259/2*207+212/2 together with construction measuring 47 ½ feet * 56 feet situate at Maluru Town Railway Station (henceforth referred to as the ‘premises’ / ‘property’) belonging to it within the time stipulated therein. 2. The petitioner claims that the property bearing Municipal Khata No.2506/1969 along with the construction thereon belonged to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 had earlier allowed a School to be run under the name and style ‘Sri Vidhyanidhi Primary School’ in the premises. Later, the School was taken over by the petitioner. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41437 WP No. 4317 of 2020 respondent No.1 at a meeting held on 25.02.1992 resolved to grant the premises to the petitioner on a long lease of 99 years subject to the condition that the petitioner invests a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and puts up a new construction and hand it over to respondent No.1 at the time of the expiry of tenure of lease. The petitioner claims that it has been running a School in the premises ever since then after obtaining necessary orders of recognition and grant etc. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 issued a notice on 08.07.2015 to it to hand over the premises as it was needed for public purposes. The petitioner replied stating that it is not in a position to shift the School as 300 children were studying and therefore, requested that it may be continued in the premises. The respondent No.1 then caused a notice dated 25.02.2016 to the petitioner calling it upon to vacate the premises within one month therefrom failing which action would be initiated against it as provided under law. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 26.03.2016 reiterating its earlier contention. Later on 16.05.2016, the petitioner requested the respondent No.1 for permission to carry out the repairs and put up fresh construction. This was followed by another representation - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41437 WP No. 4317 of 2020 dated 08.04.2019 to the respondent No.1 for very same reliefs. After four years thereafter, the respondent No.1 issued a notice on 14.01.2020 calling upon the petitioner to vacate and hand over the premises to the respondent No.1. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the notice issued by the respondent No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises was earlier leased to Sri Vidhyanidhi Primary School and the petitioner has taken over the said School and is now running it. He contends that the respondent No.1 was fully aware of this as is evident from the meeting of the respondent No.1 – Council dated 25.02.1992 whereby it had agreed to extend the lease of the premises in favour of the petitioner for a period of 99 years. He contends that if the respondent No.1 desired to recover the possession of the premises, they could have done so only through the due process of law and not by issuing a notice. 4. The respondent No.1 has filed a detailed statement of objections inter alia contending that the petitioner has its own building at Maruthi Extension, Malur and in spite of this, it - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41437 WP No. 4317 of 2020 was not handing over the premises to the respondent No.1. It claimed that from the year 2007, the petitioner is operating the School in a new premises and for name sake, it is operating the School in the present premises with a handful of students. It also contended that the lease in favour of the petitioner for a period of 99 years is impermissible and no permission under sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 is obtained from the State Government. Thus, it claimed that the decision of the respondent No.1 to lease the premises to the petitioner for a period of 99 years is without the authority of law and unenforceable in the eyes of law. It claimed that the petitioner is squatting on public property without even remitting the rents and therefore, the petitioner is bound to deliver up possession of the property. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 reiterated the above contentions and invited the attention of this Court to the photographs produced along with the statement of objections which give an impression that the petitioner has now started an English medium School in a different location. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41437 WP No. 4317 of 2020 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 7. The premises in question belongs to the respondent No.1 which is undoubtedly a ‘public premises’ as defined under Section 2(e)(i) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short, ‘the Act, 1974’). If the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the premises, the respondent No.1 is bound to take steps as provided under Section 4 of the Act, 1974 by indicating as to how the possession of the petitioner is unauthorized. If the petitioner fails to comply with the notice, the respondent No.1 is entitled to take out proceedings under Section 5 of the Act, 1974. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent cannot call upon the petitioner by a notice to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises. So long as the possession of the petitioner is known to the respondent No.1, it is bound to take out the proceedings in accordance with law and cannot forcibly compel the petitioner to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises in question. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41437 WP No. 4317 of 2020 8. In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The impugned notice bearing No.¥ÀĸÀªÀiÁ/PÀA±Á/¹Dgï/01/2019-20 dated 14.01.2020 issued by the respondent No.1 is set aside. It is open for the respondent No.1 to take out proceedings in accordance with the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 and the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1980. The petitioner shall pay all arrears of rent in respect of the premises within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which the respondent No.1 shall be entitled to take reasonable measures to recover the arrears of rent from the petitioner. In view of disposal of this petition, I.A No.1/2025 for vacating the interim order dated 24.02.2020 filed by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32