IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.2010 OF 2016 (GM-PP) BETWEEN:
SMT.LAKSHMI, D/O LATE DYAVAYYA, AGED 57 YEARS, BEHIND CHANNAVERAPPA FRUIT STALL, WARD NO.30, HASSAN – 573 201.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIKARA P.K., FOR SRI. B.M.MOHAN KUMAR, ADVs.) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201.
2. THE COMPETENT OFFICER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.RAVISHANKAR, ADV., FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.09.2015 PASSED IN M.A. NO.2/2015 BY THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT HASSAN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN M.A.2/2015 UNDER SEC.10 OF THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1974 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE – A CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF R-2 DATED 08.12.2014 PASSED IN ORDER AT ANNEXURE – B AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. Shrikara P.K., learned counsel for Sri. B.M. Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. A. Ravishankar, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner, inter alia, seeks a writ of certiorari, for quashing the impugned order dated 3.9.2015 passed by the Principal District Judge, Hassan, by which appeal preferred by the petitioner under section 10 of the Karnataka Public Premises [Eviction of unauthorized Occupants] Act, 1974 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’]. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 8.12.2014 passed by the Respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Act.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Kempamma has filed civil suit, namely, OS No.336/2009 in respect of the schedule property which has been decreed by the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Hassan, by Judgment and decree dated 14.01.2019 and in the aforesaid proceedings, the Respondent No.1 was also arrayed as Defendant No.2 in the suit. Therefore, the aforesaid Judgment and decree binds Respondent No.1. It is further submitted that the plaintiff in OS No.336/2009 has been declared to be the owner in respect of the premises in question and therefore the same cannot be treated as public premises under the Act and therefore the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
4. The copy of the Judgment and decree produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.
5. A perusal of the aforesaid Judgment and decree, it is evident that one Kempamma who was plaintiff in OS No.336/2009 has been declared to be owner of the property in question. Therefore, the property in question cannot be treated to be public premises under the Act.
6. In the result, the impugned orders dated 8.12.2014 and 3.9.2015 are hereby quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-