- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22447 WP No. 30321 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.30321 OF 2025 (GM-PP) BETWEEN: MR.SUDARSHAN NAYAK S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT BOLUR KATTE MANGALURU - 575004 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES MALPE, UDUPI - 576108 2. THE FISHERIES DEPARTMENT REP BY ASST. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES (JNR SCALE) BUNDER MANGALURU - 575001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.06.2025 PASSED IN Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22447 WP No. 30321 of 2025 M.A.NO.13/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU, CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT DATED 04.02.2025 PASSED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, MALPE, UDUPI IN CASE NO.20/2023-24 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the order of eviction passed under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'), and confirmed by the learned District Judge in MA No.13/2025. 2. The petitioner has instituted the present writ petition contending that the demand towards arrears of rent was raised for the first time in the course of eviction proceedings and that no such prior demand was ever - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22447 WP No. 30321 of 2025 made before initiation of proceedings under the Act. It is, therefore, urged that the said demand is untenable in law. 3. The petitioner further asserts that the respondent– Department has not renewed the lease agreement subsequent to the period 2010–11 and, in the absence of renewal, the respondents are disentitled from claiming any arrears. It is also contended that the petitioner, having continued in possession, has acquired possessory rights and that the claim for arrears is otherwise barred by limitation. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court has carefully examined the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below. 5. A reading of the impugned orders would indicate that the respondent–Department initiated eviction proceedings in furtherance of a scheme formulated by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22447 WP No. 30321 of 2025 Central Government for development of a Fisheries Port at Mangaluru. 6. The records further disclose that substantial funds were sanctioned for implementation of the said project and, for effective execution, the Department was required to secure vacant possession from all existing leaseholders. 7. On a careful consideration of the averments made in the writ petition, particularly the grounds urged, it is evident that the petitioner has unequivocally admitted that the lease agreement executed for the period 2010–11 has expired and has not been renewed thereafter. This categorical admission, in the considered view of this Court, clearly establishes that the petitioner’s continued occupation is unauthorized. In that view of the matter, the Estate Officer was fully justified in invoking the powers under Section 4 of the Act and proceeding to pass the order of eviction. The impugned eviction order is thus founded on the admitted position that the petitioner is an - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22447 WP No. 30321 of 2025 unauthorized occupant. The concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below do not suffer from any perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2