- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32347-DB WA No. 1383 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1383 OF 2021 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.G.M.MAHADEVA, S/O VADGALAYYA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O NO.1, 2ND STAGE, 1ST MAIN ROAD, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-570 026. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.SRIKANTH FOR SRI.C.JAGADISH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURA, Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32347-DB WA No. 1383 of 2021 CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU-570 005. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570 005. 5. THE COMMISSIONER MYSURU CITY CORPORTION, NEW SAYYAJI ROAD, MYSURU-570 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R4 SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R5-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2021 PASSED IN WP 8137/2021(LB-RES) AND PERMIT THE APPELLANT TO WITHDRAW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY HIM AS NOT PRESSED AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32347-DB WA No. 1383 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Sri. Srikanth M.P, the brief holder of Sri.C.Jagadish, learned counsel for the appellant appears through video conference and requests an adjournment on the ground that his senior is not well. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 are present. 3. This writ appeal was filed in the year 2021. Several office objections were raised. On 18.04.2022, this Court granted two weeks' time to comply with the office objections. On 18.07.2022, one week time was granted by the Court to comply with the office objections. On 14.10.2022, two weeks' time was granted to comply with the office objections, failing which, it was directed by this Court, that the appeal would stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. Certain I.A's were filed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32347-DB WA No. 1383 of 2021 thereafter for recalling the order of dismissal and condonation of delay. 4. By an order dated 10.11.2023 I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 were dismissed as not pressed and for consideration of I.A.Nos.4 and 3 of 2023 the learned counsel was directed to keep the appellant physically present. 5. On 20.01.2024, both the counsel for the appellant and the appellant himself were present before the Court. I.A.Nos.4 and 3 of 2023 were allowed, the delay was condoned and the appeal was restored to its original file. It was further directed that as and when directed by the Court, the learned counsel for the appellant shall keep the appellant present before the Court. On 05.06.2024, this Court granted two weeks time to comply with the office objections and to furnish process fee etc., for issuing notice to respondent No.5. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32347-DB WA No. 1383 of 2021 6. On 08.07.2024, this Court noticed that notice to respondent No.5 is incomplete and directed issuance of fresh notice to respondent No.5. Learned counsel for the appellant was also directed to remove the office objections. 7. On 05.09.2024, a week's time was granted by the Court to comply with the office objections. A similar order was passed by this Court on 27.01.2025. On 24.02.2025, two office objections were overruled by the Court and the matter was directed to be listed for admission. 8. On 05.03.2025, learned counsel for the appellant undertook to serve a copy of the appeal complete in all respects to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and the matter was adjourned on his request. 9. On 12.03.2025, the case was adjourned. On 01.04.2025, the matter was directed to be listed in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32347-DB WA No. 1383 of 2021 usual course. On 02.06.2025, the case was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the appellant. 10. On 12.06.2025, the case was adjourned on the ground of illness of the learned counsel for the appellant. 11. Today, again, the same request has been repeated, that is, for adjournment of the case on the ground of illness of the learned counsel for the appellant. 12. We are afraid that given the facts and circumstances of the case, we shall not accede to the request for adjournment. The brief holder appearing online was asked to proceed with the matter and argue the case, but he expressed his inability to do so. Therefore, the record of this writ appeal has been perused for its consideration. 13. This writ appeal has been filed seeking to set aside an order dated 09.11.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in WP.No.8137/2021 (LD RES) and to permit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32347-DB WA No. 1383 of 2021 the appellant to withdraw the writ petition filed by him as not pressed. 14. The order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court reflects the gross abuse on part of the petitioner by unauthorisedly occupying the house in question, which was constructed by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority, for the last 21 years, without any allotment in his name. The order eloquently describes the conduct of the petitioner and is quoted as under: "This is a classic case of abuse of process of the Court and misuse of law as an instrument of fraud & harassment by the writ petitioner. The brief facts of the case are as under: i) The State Government through the Department of Urban Development, had constructed 12145 houses at various places within the jurisdictional limits of respondent – MUDA; 11937 houses were allotted to the beneficiaries and the remaining 208 houses have been occupied by others; one of the occupants happens to be the petitioner herein; his case is that he has been in the occupation of the subject house since the year 2000 “as per the verbal assurance given by the then Engineers”. ii) When the said houses were sought to be allotted to the eligible persons, petitioner along with others is said to have approached the Chief Minister vide Letter dated - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32347-DB WA No. 1383 of 2021 22.02.2016; subsequently, petitioner addressed a Letter dated 04.03.2016 to the Commission for Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe, seeking a direction for the allotment of the subject house on the basis of adverse possession and that he is ready & willing to pay the amount by installments. iii) Strangely, the State SC/ST Commission vide Notice dated 08.03.2016 directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Government of Karnataka and the Commissioner of MUDA to submit their explanation to the complaint of the petitioner by appearing in person; he had also submitted a complaint to the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission which vide Order dated 16.04.2016 registered the case and directed the MUDA Commissioner to submit the report within six weeks; the reply & reports were submitted to both the Commissions; petitioner had also complained to the National Commission for Scheduled Caste. iv) The respondent – MUDA vide Endorsement dated 25.01.2021, rejected the claim of the petitioner and conveyed to him the decision of the MUDA that all the vacant houses shall be disposed off by way of auction in accordance with the extant Rules; aggrieved thereby, petitioner is knocking at the doors of this Court. 2. After service of notice, the respondents 1, 2 & 4 have entered appearance through the learned AGA; the third respondent-MUDA & the fifth respondent – Mysuru City Corporation have entered appearance through their learned Panel Advocates; all they oppose the writ petition contending that petitioner is not justified in seeking allotment of the house in question on the ground of adverse possession for 21 years; they also contend that the petitioner is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32347-DB WA No. 1383 of 2021 abusing the process of the Court and his culpable conduct disentitles him to any relief at the hands of the Writ Court. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: a) Petitioner claims to be a member of the Scheduled Caste; however, he has not produced any material to substantiate his claim; still, assuming that he belongs to that community, no right would accrue in his favour for gaining entry to the house in question which admittedly belongs to the Government and which is meant for being allotted to the genuine & eligible members of the oppressed communities; no allotment can be claimed by a person who gains entry to the public property by hooliganism and continue in its occupation, on the mere ground that he belongs to oppressed class of the society; an argument to the contrary runs counter to the rule of law; such a conduct militates against peace & tranquility of the organized society. This cannot be permitted to continue. This cannot be permitted to continue. b) Admittedly, the petitioner has been in the unauthorized occupation of the subject building since last 21 years; his contention that he was verbally permitted by the then Engineers, is a militant lie to say the least; he has not named the Engineers who gave such verbal permission or assurance nor has he narrated the material particulars such as the circumstances, date & place as to when such an assurance was given; it is not a small cowshed situate at a remote place; under what authority the engineers could have granted such permission and assurance on behalf of the Government or the MUDA, is not being revealed despite insistence; both the AGA and the Panel Counsel deny petitioner’s submission. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32347-DB WA No. 1383 of 2021 (c) Petitioner claiming to be a member of oppressed class and as a journalist has harassed the high rank officials of the Government and MUDA by unjustifiably dragging them to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes & the Karnataka Human Rights Commission and the Karnataka SC/ST Commission; strangely, these Commissions have given a lenient indulgence in his favour though he has made several unjustifiable claim for the grant of the house on the ground of adverse possession; the petition filed by the respondent-MUDA in W.P.No.8020/2015 (GM-RES) has been disposed off this day in its favour and the impugned proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the SC/ST Commission have been set at naught; in his Statement of Objections filed by him as 3rd respondent therein has stated about he having contested for the State Assembly Election from Chamundeshwari Constituency; thus petitioner is not naïve to the public life & public morality, to justify his seeking protection at the hands of SC/ST Commission or this court, in fact, such persons spoil the social image of oppressed classes; happening of such things should be oppressed by the iron hand of the court. (d) It hardly needs to be stated that the constitutional jurisdiction of this court cannot be permitted to be invoked by the unscrupulous persons like the petitioner; if persons of this kind are granted relief at the hands of this court, the makers of the Constitution would shiver in their graves; it is the duty of the Writ Court, Government & the statutory/constitutional authorities like the Commissions in question to ensure that such unworthy persons do not tap their resources; a strong message should go to the quarters that be that the Courts would never tolerate mischiefs of the kind and the misuse of statutory machinery; no special case is made - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32347-DB WA No. 1383 of 2021 out for granting indulgence in the circumstances of the case. e) It is brought to the notice of this Court that several such Government houses have been unauthorizedly occupied by hooligans since years without paying a rupee and that no action is taken against the unauthorized occupants; such cases are fit for being treated both in civil & criminal law on a war-footing; otherwise, no public property shall be safe and secured; it is the duty of the authorities to protect the public property; what irks this Court is that a rank unauthorized occupier holds the public property by maneuvering and scheming which otherwise would have been allotted to the deserving members of the oppressed classes; all this cannot be allowed to go with impunity; unscrupulousness should be visited with a heavy hand. f) There is yet another aspect which needs mentioning; petitioner claims to be the State President of the Association of Small and Medium Newspapers of India; he also claims to be the Editor & publisher of “Rashtrakraanthi” newspaper; strangely, the registered office of the Association is shown to be in the subject house; no material is produced on record to show that any action is taken for throwing the petitioner and other unauthorized occupants out, of course, in accordance with law; these things can happen only in “Alice in Wonderland”; this is a fit case for imposing exemplary & penal costs. In the above circumstances, this writ petition being thoroughly devoid of merits and being a gross abuse of process of the Court, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is with a cost of Rs.6,00,000/- (Six Lakh) only; the costs are quantified at the rate of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) only per year of unauthorized occupation, although the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32347-DB WA No. 1383 of 2021 approximate monthly rental value is Rs.7,500/-. The petitioner shall pay the costs to the third respondent – MUDA, within a period of six weeks, failing which he shall pay additional cost of Rs.1,000/- per day of delay. The respondents 1, 2 & 3 are directed to take immediate steps to prosecute all unauthorized occupants including the petitioner and to remove them from the subject Government buildings, forthwith and by due process of law. The Registry shall immediately send a copy of this order to; i) The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru; ii) The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, New Delhi; and, iii) The Chairman, Press Council of India, New Delhi, for information & needful action." 15. We have perused the writ petition and it contains no averment regarding any valid allotment of the house in question, in favour of the writ appellant. It appears to be an unauthorized occupancy and as is evident from perusal of the order of the learned single Judge, the petitioner also tried to set up a case of adverse possession. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32347-DB WA No. 1383 of 2021 17. In view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we do not see any reason to interfere in the considered and well reasoned order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, this appeal is therefore dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11