IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.9298 OF 2016 (GM-PP) BETWEEN:
M.S.RANGASWAMY.
S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BEHIND BASAVAIAH COMPOUND, CHANNAPATNA, HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN-573 201.
(BY SMT. SHARADAMBA A R, ADV.) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, N.R.CIRCLE, HASSAN-573 201.
2. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT HASSAN-573 201 (DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DTD.01/03/2016) ...
RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A RAVI SHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1 V/O DATED 01.03.2016 R2 IS DELETED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEX-C THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2014 PASSED BY R-1; QUASH ANNEX-F THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2016 PASSED BY COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, HASSAN IN M.A.8/2015 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Smt.A.R.Sharadamba, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.A.Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for 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 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 08.12.2014 passed by the competent authority under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity). The petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 03.02.2016 by which, the aforesaid order has been up held in appeal by the Principal District Judge, Hassan.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the petition briefly stated are:
That the petitioner claims to have purchased 0.01 gunta of land from one Kumaraswamy P.K. The sale deed shows that on the western side of the land, there exists 10 feet road. From the perusal of record, it is evident that the petitioner has purchased 0.01 gunta of land. However, while rising construction, the petitioner encroached the area measuring 7 feet x 24 feet of the public road. There upon, the proceedings was initiated against the petitioner. The competent authority issued notice to the petitioner. However, despite service of notice, the petitioner did not produce any document in support of his case that land in his occupation is not part of the public road and he is the owner of the same. The competent authority by an order dated 08.12.2014, directed eviction of the petitioner from the area measuring 7 feet x 24 feet.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 10 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 before the Principal District Judge. The Principal District Judge, by impugned order dated 03.02.2016 has dismissed the appeal. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority has failed to consider the documents produced by the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that despite notice being served on the petitioner, he has failed to produce any documents before the competent authority to show that the property on which he has raised construction measuring 7 feet x 24 feet is not a part of the public road and he is the owner thereon. It is further submitted that the findings have been recorded by the competent authority as well as the appellate authority on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on record, which does not call for any interference.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the records.
7. From the perusal of records, it is evident that the competent authority had issued notice on 04.09.2014 to the petitioner under Section 4(1) of the Act on the ground that the petitioner has encroached and constructed a residential property on the area measuring 7 feet x 24 feet on public road and had directed him to produce the documents to show that he is not in unauthorized occupation of the premises. However, the petitioner has neither appeared nor filed any documents. Thereafter, again a notice was sent to the petitioner on 14.11.2014. However, the petitioner again failed to furnish any documents in proof of his contention and did not appear before the authority. Thereafter, an order under Section 5(1) of the Act directing eviction of the petitioner was passed on 08.12.2014. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred under Section 10 of the Act, which had been dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Hassan by the impugned order. It is held that there exists 10 feet public road on the western side. Record of Rights as well as the mutation extract also reveal the same and the petitioner has purchased 0.01 gunta of land. It is further held that despite sufficient opportunity being afforded to the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to appear before the competent authority to substantiate his plea that he is not in unauthorized occupation. It has further been held that the petitioner did not produce any documents to prove as to how the Municipality recognized his possession and how he got title over the property in question. Accordingly, the appellate authority has held that the premises in question is a public premises and the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the same. The aforesaid findings of fact which are concurrent in nature, arrived at by the authorities on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on record, at no stretch of imagination can be said to be perverse or based on no evidence warranting interference by this Court in exercise of judicial review.
8. It is well settled in law that this Court under Article 227of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence and cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities, unless and until the findings are shown to be either perverse or based on no evidence. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to point out that the concurrent findings recorded against him are either perverse or based on no evidence. Therefore, no ground for interference with the impugned orders is made out. In the result, I do not find any merit in the petition, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-* ct:bms