T.Ramkrishna S/O. Thimarayappa ... vs The Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 5461 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 DHARWAD BENCH
      DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
                        BEFORE
 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
      WRIT PETITION NO.147068/2020 (GM-PP)
BETWEEN :
T.RAMKRISHNA S/O THIMARAYAPPA CHOWKIDAR,
AGE : 61 YEARS, OCC: RETD. GOVERNMENT SERVANT,
R/O A-3, KHB COLONY, SANTOSH NAGAR,
HUBBALLI, DHARWAD-580001.
                                          ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRASHANT S.HOSMANI, ADV.)

AND :
1.    THE COMMISSIONER,
      KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
      CAUVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560001.

2.    THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
      KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
      HUBBALLI DIVISION, HUBBALLI,
      DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

3.    THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
      PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT &
      INLAND WATER DEPARTMENT,
      SUB-DIVISION, HUBBALLI,
      DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
                                         ... RESPONDENTS
(BY   SMT.SHARMILA M.PATIL, ADV. FOR R.1 & 2
      SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R.3)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS COURT TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH
THE LETTERS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
25.11.2019    BEARING      NO.SA.KAA.NI.IM/LO.E/U.VI.HU/C-
9/2019-2020/896 AND LETTER DATED 14.01.2020 BEARING
NO.SA.KA.NI.IM/LO.E/U.VI.H/C-9/2019-2020/1202 PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-C & D RESPECTIVELY IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.
                                  2




      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                            : ORDER :

In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in

question Annexures-C & D eviction notices issued by

respondent No.3.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the

petitioner was working as Group-D employee in Public

Works Department. When he was in service, the

House bearing No.A-3 in K.H.B.Colony, Santosh

Nagar, Hubballi was allotted by respondent No.3 on

rental basis as per Annexure-A. The petitioner is

residing in the said house from the date of allotment

till today. Even after retirement from the services, the

petitioner continued to reside in the said house.

3. On 25.11.2019, respondent No.3 has

issued notice to the petitioner under the provisions of

Karnataka Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized

Occupants Act, 1974 directing him to vacate the

premises. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

is filed this writ petition

4. Sri Prashant S.Hosmani, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner has contended that, since

respondent No.3 is not the owner of the said property,

he has no right to issue such impugned notice vide

Annexure-C to the petitioner for eviction from the

schedule house. He further contended that, the

petitioner has submitted a representation dated

10.03.2020 vide Annexure-E to respondent Nos.1 & 2

requesting them to execute the sale deed in favour of

the petitioner after collecting prevailing market price

of the said house, since in case of the employees who

were similarly placed, respondent No.1 has executed

the sale deed in their favour. In support of his

contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied

on the judgments of this Court in W.P.Nos.21775-

21782/1996 and connected matters disposed off

on26.03.1998, W.P.No.13930/1998 disposed of on

29.10.1999, W.P.No.77630-634/2013 and connected

matters disposed of on 24.04.2013 and

W.P.No.76983/2013 disposed of on 05.06.2013.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

respondents submits that, since the petitioner is

retired from the service, he has no right to continue in

the said house. Therefore, respondent No.3 has rightly

issued eviction notice under the said Act and hence

sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the writ papers.

7. It is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent

has allotted the quarters in favour of the petitioner.

Even after retirement from the service, the petitioner

is allowed to continue in the said quarters. It is also

not in dispute that, lease executed in favour of the 3rd

respondent by respondent No.1 had expired as on the

date of issuing impugned notice and there was no

lease in existence in favour of the 3rd respondent at

that time.

8. In the similar circumstances, this Court in

W.P.No.77630-634/2013 and connected matters

disposed off on 24.04.2013 has passed the following

order.

"The order referred by the petitioners' counsel wherein it has been held that in view of expiry of the lease in favour of the second respondent, the second respondent loses its power and ownership over the houses. In the circumstances, it is the Housing Board who has to decide the case of the petitioner by considering the representation for allotment of houses as prayed for. Hence, the Karnataka Housing Board is directed to consider and pass appropriate order on the representation Annexure-B within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, the impugned notices issued by the second respondent are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. Till consideration of representation of the petitioners, the possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed."

9. In view of the above, the impugned notices

vide Annexures-C & D issued by the 3rd respondent is

quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the

representation dated 10.03.2020 submitted by the

petitioner vide Annexure-E in accordance with law. Till

consideration of the representation of the petitioner,

the possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed.

10. With these observations, the writ petition is

disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE EM