- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3641 WP No. 38349 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 38349 OF 2025 (GM-PP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. AKKAMMA W/O LATE LINGRAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O SY NO.245/2 HEBBALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571602. 2. SRI JAYA NINGU S/O LATE PUTTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O SY NO.245/2 HEBBALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571602. 3. SMT.HEMA W/O. L.SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O SY NO.245/2 HEBBALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571602. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3641 WP No. 38349 of 2025 4. SMT. DEEPIKA W/O LATE JAYARAMU AGED ABOUT 41YEARS, R/O SY NO.245/2 HEBBALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571602. 5. SMT.PARVATHI W/O.LATE NINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O SY NO.245/2 HEBBALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571602. 6. MR.PRABHU RAO S/O. YASHWANT AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O SY NO.245/2 HEBBALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571602. 7. SRI. C.PUTTARAJU S/O LATE RACHAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O SY NO.245/2 HEBBALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571602. 8. MR.RAVISH.S S/O. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O SY NO.245/2 HEBBALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571602. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3641 WP No. 38349 of 2025 9. SRI.L.SHANKAR S/O LINGA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O SY NO.245/2 HEBBALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571602. 10. MRS.SUDHAMANI.B.M W/O.MOHANA.D.T AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O SY NO.245/2 HEBBALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571602. 11. SMT.SHANTHAMMA.B.M W/O.S.VASU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O SY NO.245/2 HEBBALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571602. 12. SRI.V.SATHYANARAYANA S/O CHALAPATHI RAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O SY NO.245/2, HEBBALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571602. 13. SMT.LAKSHMI DEVI W/O C.RAJU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O SY NO.245/2 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3641 WP No. 38349 of 2025 HEBBALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571602. 14. M.N.NAGARAJU S/O MADA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, SIDDAPPAJI TEMPLE R/O SY NO.245/2 HEBBALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571602. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. L M CHIDANANDAYYA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI RD, CHAMARAJAPURA, CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU- 570005. 2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, , JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI RD, CHAMARAJAPURA, CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU-570005. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.P VIVEKANANDA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA FOR R2) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3641 WP No. 38349 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN ISSUING OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICES VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A14 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.12.2025 IN IBEARING NO.LAQ (4) MC/29/89- DIRECTING THE PETITIONERS TO VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER THE CONSTRUCTIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONERS ON THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.245/2 SITUATED AT HEBBALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT; B) ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICES VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A14 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.12.2025 IN NO.LAQ (4) MC/29/89-90 DIRECTING THE PETITIONERS TO VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER THE CONSTRUCTIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONERS ON THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.245/2 SITUATED AT HEBBALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT; C) ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH LAWFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE ITEMS OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OR THE DEMOLITION THE CONSTRUCTIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONERS ON THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN THE ALLEGED EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE PUBLIC - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3641 WP No. 38349 of 2025 PREMISES ACT; D) DECLARE THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A1 TO A14 DATED 03.12.2025 IN BEARING NO.LAQ(4)MC/29/89-90 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ULTRA VIRES THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners assert that they have purchased revenue sites in Sy. No.245/2, Hebbalu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and District and that they are in possession of the respective properties in their own right but the second respondent as a Special Land Acquisition Officer with the Mysuru Urban Development Authority [the first respondent] has issued the impugned final Notices. The second respondent has issued these impugned Notices - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3641 WP No. 38349 of 2025 stipulating that the petitioners before 13.12.2025 must justify why they must not be evicted from the respective portions while also mentioning that the criminal proceedings would be initiated against them. This Court, on 18.12.2025, has stayed the operation of the impugned notices observing that the second respondent has issued the notices in his capacity as a Special Land Acquisition Officer and not as an Estate Officer [a designated authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants] Act, 1974] [for short, 'the Act']. 2. Sri L M Chidanandayya, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that apart from the question of the second respondent's jurisdiction to issue notices under the provisions of the Act as a Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners contend [i] that the petitioners' occupation is not acquired for the benefit of the MUDA and if it is not acquired then - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3641 WP No. 38349 of 2025 it cannot be public premises subject to the provisions of the Act, [ii] that if there is a civil dispute involving title as is in the present case, the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked for summary eviction [iii] that even to assume jurisdiction to examine this aspect, the second respondent must necessarily hold enquiry as is contemplated under Section 5 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Karnataka Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants] Rules, 1980 [for short, 'the Rules']. 3. Sri T P Vivekananda, the learned counsel for MUDA and the second respondent, submits that the petitioners cannot succeed on the ground that the second respondent cannot officiate as the 'Estate Officer' because, under the Notification dated 29.03.2016 issued by the Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka, the second respondent is constituted as the 'Estate Officer' and designated authority for the purposes of the Act. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3641 WP No. 38349 of 2025 Indeed, this remains indisputable and therefore the petitioners cannot succeed on this ground. 4. However, this Court must observe that the impugned notices cannot be sustained because any direction for eviction must necessarily be after reasonable opportunity in an enquiry as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act and Rule 5 of the Rules and even for an eviction, there must be a specific finding on facts that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants after considering the petitioners' case that they are in possession of the subject properties in their own right. This Court must also observe that it is trite that if there are any disputes on title which can only be decided by the competent civil Court of original jurisdiction, the second respondent cannot assume jurisdiction to direct eviction under the Act. In the light of the afore the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3641 WP No. 38349 of 2025 ORDER [a] The petition is allowed in part treating the impugned notices as show cause notices contemplated under Section 4 of the Act and for continuation of an enquiry as is contemplated under Section 5 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules. [b] The second respondent, for continuation of such proceedings in the light of the petitioners' response to the impugned notices, shall ensure that the petitioners are issued with separate notices for due information. [c] It is needless to observe that the petitioners would also be at liberty to file their further response if any. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-