SMT ZAHEEDA KHAN vs THE COMMISSIONER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 36259 OF 2016 (GM-PP)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 36248 OF 2016 (GM-PP)
WRIT PETITION NO. 36254 OF 2016 (GM-PP)
WRIT PETITION NO. 36255 OF 2016 (GM-PP)
WRIT PETITION NO. 36256 OF 2016 (GM-PP)
WRIT PETITION NO. 36260 OF 2016 (GM-PP)
WRIT PETITION NO. 36262 OF 2016 (GM-PP)
IN WP No. 36259/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VIJAYENDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O LAKSHMAN RAO
SRI SHIVAJI PROVISION STORES
OLD BUS STAND ROAD
HASSAN - 573201
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. KEMPE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
HASSAN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
B M ROAD, HASSAN – 573201.
2. THE COMPETENT OFFICER
HASSAN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
B M ROAD, HASSAN – 573201.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.06.2016 PASSED IN M.A.43/2014
BY THE HON'BLE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT HASSAN
DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN
M.A.44/2014 UNDER SEC.10 OF THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC
PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPNANTS) ACT,
1974, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A CONFIRMING THE ORDER
OF R-2 DATED 27.11.2014 PASSED IN ORDER AT
ANNEXURE-B; AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 36248/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ISMAIL KHAN
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
1(A) SIRAJ UI HASAN KHAN
S/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN
1(B) CHANNAKESHAVA K.R.
S/O LATE ISMAIL KHAN
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
1(C) AFSAH MARYAM KHAN
ALL ARE R/AT DOOR NO. 140,
BESIDE JAMIA MASJID
AZAD ROAD CROSS
NAWAITH WADI,
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
HASSAN- 573 201.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. KEMPE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
HASSAN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
B M ROAD, HASSAN – 573201
2.
3.
THE COMPETENT OFFICER
HASSAN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
B M ROAD, HASSAN – 573201
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.06.2016 PASSED IN
M.A.NO.42/2014 BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
AT HASSAN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN M.A.NO.42/2014 UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE
KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED
OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1974 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A
CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF R-2 DATED 27.11.2014
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B; AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 36254/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SHUAIB AHAMED KHAN
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
S/O LATE HAMEED KAHN
SHOE ZONE, OLD BUS STAND ROAD
HASSAN - 573201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. KEMPE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
HASSAN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
B M ROAD, HASSAN – 573201.
2.
3.
THE COMPETENT OFFICER
HASSAN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
B M ROAD, HASSAN – 573201
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.06.2016 PASSED IN
M.A.NO.39/2014 BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
AT HASSAN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN M.A.NO.39/2014 UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE
KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED
OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1974 PRODUCED AT ANNX-A CONFIRMING
THE ORDER OF R-2 DATED 27.11.2014 PRODUCED AT ANNX-B;
AND ETC.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
IN WP NO. 36255/2016
BETWEEN:
1.
2.
SRI ABDUL KHADUR
DEAD BY LRS
ABDUL ALI
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O LATE ABDUL KHADUR
SHOWKATH ALI
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O LATE ABDUL KHADUR
3. MEHERE TABAN
AGED 46 YEARS
D/O LATE ABDUL KHADUR
4. TABASSUM AFSHAN
AGED 56 YEARS
D/O LATE ABDUL KHADUR
5. ABDUL GANI
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O LATE ABDUL KHADUR
6. IRFAN BANU
AGED 51 YEARS
D/O LATE ABDUL KHADUR
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF AZAD ROAD,
NEAR JAMIYA MASJID, HASSAN - 573201
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. KEMPE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
HASSAN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
B M ROAD, HASSAN – 573201.
2.
3.
THE COMPETENT OFFICER
HASSAN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
B M ROAD, HASSAN – 573201
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.06.2016 PASSED IN
M.A.NO.40/2014 BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
AT HASSAN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS IN M.A.NO.40/2014 UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE
KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED
OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1974 PRODUCED AT ANNX-A CONFIRMING
THE ORDER OF R-2 DATED 27.11.2014 PRODUCED AT ANNX-B;
AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 36256/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SMT ZAHEEDA KHAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
W/O LATE ABDUL HAFEEZ
INDIAN CELL POINT, OLD BUS STAND ROAD,
HASSAN CITY – 573201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. KEMPE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
HASSAN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
B M ROAD, HASSAN – 573201.
2.
3.
THE COMPETENT OFFICER
HASSAN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
B M ROAD, HASSAN – 573201
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.6.2016 PASSED IN
M.ANO.45/2014 BY THE HON'BLE DISTRICT JUDGE AT HASSAN
DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN
M.A.NO.45/2014 UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE KARNATAKA
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED
OCCUPANTS) ACT 1974 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A
CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF R-2 DATED 27.11.2014
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B; AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 36260/2016
BETWEEN:
1.
1(A)
SRI N K RAJEGOWDA
@ RAJAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O LATE N K RAJEGOWDA @ RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
1(B)
1(C)
CHANNAKESHAVA .K.R
S/O LATE N K RAJEGOWDA @ RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.103, BUDDHA MARGA
RD
3 CROSS, VIDHYANAGARA,
HASSAN-573 201.
VINODHA .K.R
D/O LATE N K RAJEGOWDA @ RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O VIJAYAKUMAR .C
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT E2 503, PROVIDENT WELWORTH CITY
DODDABALLAPUR MAIN ROAD
YELAHANKA MARASANDRA AMANIKERE
BISUVANAHALLI, KARNATAKA-562 163.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. KEMPE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
HASSAN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
B M ROAD, HASSAN – 573201.
2.
3.
THE COMPETENT OFFICER
HASSAN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
B M ROAD, HASSAN – 573201
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R3)
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 15.06.2016 PASSED IN M.A.44/2014 BY THE
PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT HASSAN DISMISSING THE APPEAL
FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN M.A.44/2014 UNDER SEC.10 OF
THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF
UNAUTHORISED OCCUPNANTS) ACT, 1974 AT ANNEX-A
CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF R-2 DATED 27.11.2014 PASSED
IN ORDER AT ANNEX-B; AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 36262/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MOHAMMED SALEEM
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O LATE K S ABDUL REHEMAN
BHARATH CELL POINT
OLD BUS STAND ROAD
HASSAN – 573 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. KEMPE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
HASSAN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
B M ROAD, HASSAN – 573201.
2.
3.
THE COMPETENT OFFICER
HASSAN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
B M ROAD, HASSAN – 573201
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.6.2016 PASSED IN
M.A.NO.41/2014 BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT
HASSAN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER
IN M.A.NO.41/2014 UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE KARNATAKA
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED
OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1974 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A
CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF R-2 DATED 27.11.2014
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B; AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING
ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
These batch of writ petitions are filed by the
petitioners, who are in occupation of the public premises
belonging to the respondent–Municipal Corporation,
Hassan, assailing the concurrent orders passed by the
learned Principal District Judge/Appellate Authority,
dismissing the miscellaneous appeals preferred by them
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
and thereby affirming the orders of eviction passed by the
Competent Officer of the respondent–Municipal
Corporation under the provisions of the Karnataka Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974
(for short, ‘the Act’).
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners would contend that the show-cause notices
issued by the Estate Officer under Section 4 of the Act do
not conform to the mandatory requirements contemplated
thereunder. He would submit that the initiation of
proceedings under the Act is fundamentally flawed and
that, in the absence of strict compliance with the
requirements of Section 4(1) of the Act, the consequential
orders of eviction cannot be sustained in law. It is his
further contention that the petitioners had submitted
detailed replies to the show-cause notices, specifically
bringing to the notice of the Competent Officer that the
respondent–Municipal Corporation had, pursuant to a
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
resolution passed by it, executed an agreement
authorising the petitioners to occupy the subject
properties. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the
Competent Officer failed to properly appreciate the said
material and proceeded to pass orders of eviction without
jurisdiction. He would therefore contend that the orders
passed by the Appellate Authority, affirming the orders of
eviction, suffer from serious legal infirmities and warrant
interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondent–Municipal Corporation has
produced copies of the affidavits purportedly submitted by
the petitioners, wherein they had sought indulgence in the
matter of payment of arrears of rent and had also sought
time to hand over vacant possession of the premises.
Though copies of the said affidavits were furnished to the
petitioners, the same have not been placed on record
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
before this Court. The learned Standing Counsel would
further submit that the matter had remained pending
before this Court for a considerable period and that the
petitioners had already been extended sufficient
indulgence. He would contend that the orders passed by
the Competent Officer and affirmed by the Appellate
Authority are well-founded, are in conformity with the
provisions of the Act and do not call for interference in
exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Reiterating the averments made in the
statement of objections, the learned Standing Counsel
would further draw the attention of this Court to the
affidavit filed by the Commissioner of the respondent–
Municipal Corporation. As stated therein, the vacant area
available along Old Bus Stand Road measures
approximately 136 ft. × 110 ft., whereas the petitioners
and other occupants have occupied an extent of 759.8 sq.
ft. The respondent–Municipal Corporation proposes to
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
utilise the property for the construction of a commercial
complex. It is contended that the property, being a
valuable public asset situated in close proximity to the
existing Old Bus Stand, ought to be utilised in a manner
that maximises public revenue and serves the interests of
the general public. The learned Standing Counsel would
submit that the continued unauthorised occupation of the
property by the petitioners has prevented the Municipal
Corporation from putting the property to its intended use
and from deriving appropriate revenue therefrom through
a transparent process of public auction. On these grounds,
he seeks dismissal of the writ petitions.
5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondent–Municipal Corporation.
Perused the writ petitions, the grounds urged therein, the
statement of objections and the orders impugned herein.
This Court has also examined the orders passed by the
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
Competent Officer directing eviction of the petitioners and
the corresponding orders passed by the Appellate
Authority dismissing the miscellaneous appeals preferred
by them.
6. The principal contention urged by the
petitioners is that the show-cause notices issued under
Section 4(1) of the Act suffer from non-compliance with
the statutory requirements and that such defect vitiates
the entire eviction proceedings. The petitioners have also
relied upon an agreement stated to have been executed
pursuant to a resolution passed by the respondent–
Municipal Corporation, contending that their occupation of
the subject premises was authorised.
7. On a perusal of the records, it is evident that
the petitioners do not dispute their occupation of the
subject premises, though they seek to justify the same by
placing reliance on the alleged agreement and the
resolution of the Municipal Corporation. The records
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
further indicate that the petitioners have been in
occupation of the premises since a period prior to 2005.
The materials placed before this Court also disclose that
the occupation has continued for several years.
8. The question, therefore, is whether the grounds
urged by the petitioners demonstrate any patent illegality
or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the
Competent Officer and affirmed by the Appellate Authority
so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
9. It is a settled principle that public property is
required to be administered and utilised in accordance
with law and in furtherance of public interest. Where public
premises are proposed to be commercially exploited by a
public authority, the authority is required to act in
accordance with the applicable statutory framework and
the principles governing transparency and fairness in the
disposal or grant of public assets. The respondent–
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
Municipal Corporation, being a local authority, is entitled
to secure possession of its property in accordance with law
and to utilise the same for legitimate public purposes.
10. The Act has been enacted to provide a
summary mechanism for eviction of unauthorised
occupants from public premises. The statutory scheme is
intended to enable the competent authority to secure
possession of public property without being compelled to
resort to protracted ordinary civil proceedings in every
case. The jurisdiction exercised by the Competent Officer
is, however, required to be within the limits prescribed by
the Act and in conformity with the procedural safeguards
incorporated therein.
11. Under Section 4 of the Act, the issuance of a
show-cause notice in the manner contemplated by law
constitutes an important procedural safeguard. The
Competent Officer is required to consider the response of
the occupant and the material placed on record before
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
proceeding to pass an order under Section 5 of the Act.
Consequently, a demonstrable failure to comply with the
mandatory requirements of Section 4 of the Act, may,
depending upon the nature and effect of the defect, vitiate
the consequential proceedings.
12. The contention regarding non-compliance with
Section 4(1) of the Act is a bare assertion unsupported by
specific material demonstrating that the statutory show-
cause notice was not issued or that any alleged defect
materially prejudiced the petitioners. The concurrent
finding that the statutory requirement stood complied with
is neither perverse nor vitiated by any jurisdictional error.
Mere assertion of non-compliance, without demonstrating
the nature of the alleged defect with reference to the
notices issued and the proceedings conducted, would not,
by itself, furnish a sufficient ground to set aside the
concurrent orders passed by the authorities below.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
13. Likewise, the contention founded upon the
alleged agreement executed pursuant to the resolution of
the Municipal Corporation has to be examined in the
context of the material available on record and the
findings recorded by the Competent Officer and the
Appellate Authority. The mere assertion that an agreement
was executed would not, in the absence of a demonstrated
legal infirmity in the impugned orders, be sufficient to
establish that the proceedings under the Act are without
jurisdiction.
14. This Court is also required to consider the larger
public interest involved in the continued occupation of the
subject premises. The property in question belongs to the
respondent–Municipal Corporation and, according to the
affidavit filed by its Commissioner, is proposed to be
utilised for the construction of a commercial complex. The
continued occupation of such property, in the absence of a
legally sustainable right to remain in possession, would
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
impede the Municipal Corporation from utilising the
property for the purposes contemplated by it and from
generating revenue in accordance with law.
15. Public property cannot be permitted to remain
under occupation indefinitely merely because the
occupants have continued in possession for a considerable
length of time. Equally, long-standing possession cannot,
by itself, confer a legal right to continue in occupation
when the competent authority has initiated and concluded
eviction proceedings in accordance with the governing
statute.
16. It is in this context that the statutory remedy
under the Act assumes significance. The Act provides a
mechanism for the competent authority to determine
whether the occupation of public premises is unauthorised
and, upon satisfaction of the statutory requirements, to
direct eviction. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature. It
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
is not intended to provide a further appellate forum for
re-appreciation of the material or to interfere with
concurrent findings merely because another view may be
possible. Interference is warranted where the orders under
challenge disclose a patent jurisdictional error, a manifest
illegality or a perversity warranting exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction.
17. In the present cases, the petitioners have not
demonstrated any such infirmity in the orders passed by
the Competent Officer and affirmed by the Appellate
Authority. The contention regarding non-compliance with
Section 4(1) of the Act, in the absence of specific material
establishing the alleged defect, does not persuade this
Court to invalidate the entire eviction proceedings. The
concurrent orders, therefore, do not warrant interference
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
18. It is also relevant to note that these writ
petitions have remained pending since 2016 and that the
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
petitioners have continued to occupy the premises during
the pendency of the proceedings. Having regard to the
considerable period that has elapsed, any further
indulgence, in the absence of a legally sustainable ground
to interfere with the impugned orders, would further delay
the respondent–Municipal Corporation in securing
possession of its property and putting the same to
legitimate public use.
19. The continued occupation of the premises
cannot be permitted to frustrate the lawful exercise of the
respondent–Municipal Corporation’s statutory powers. The
public interest in securing possession and utilising the
property in accordance with law, coupled with the absence
of any demonstrated jurisdictional infirmity in the
impugned orders, persuades this Court to decline
interference with the orders of eviction.
20. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no
ground to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57611
WP No. 36259 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36248 of 2016
WP No. 36254 of 2016
AND 4 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329602016
the Competent Officer and affirmed by the Appellate
Authority.
The writ petitions, being devoid of merit, are
accordingly dismissed.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ALB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48