Karnataka High Court
Athmeeya Geleyara Balaga Gruha Nirmana ... vs Union Of India on 27 May, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17654-DB
WA No. 181 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No.181 OF 2024(GM-PP)
BETWEEN:
1. ATHMEEYA GELEYARA BALAGA
GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD.,
No.754, 12TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560086.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
ESTABLISHED FOR ACQUIRING
THE LAND AND FORMATION OF LAYOUTS
AND ALLOT THE SAME,
IT IS REGD. UNDER SOCIETY
REGISTRATION ACT 1960.
Digitally signed
by VALLI 2. MR. YUVARAJA,
MARIMUTHU S/O LATE K.V. PADMANABHA,
Location: High AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
Court of R/AT No.77, 'KAVERI NILAYA',
Karnataka RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR,
RAILWAYMENS' COLONY,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560096.
3. MR. G. KRISHNA MURTHY,
S/O LATE G. GURUSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
No.449, 10TH CROSS,
A.G.B. LAYOUT, 3RD STAGE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17654-DB
WA No. 181 of 2024
CHIKKABANAVARA,
BENGALURU - 560090.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MURALIDHAR H. M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA,
DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS,
NEW DELHI - 110 001,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. ESTATE OFFICER/ ADDITIONAL
DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
BENGALURU - 560023.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MURALIDHAR H.M., ADVOCATE;
SRI MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, CGC FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
WRIT APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P No.11143/2023
DATED 18TH JULY 2023, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PASS SUCH
OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEM FIT TO
PASS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:17654-DB
WA No. 181 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocate Sri Muralidhar H M for the
appellants and learned Central Government Counsel Sri Madhukar
M Deshpande for respondent No.1.
2. The present writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated
18.07.2023 of learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition came
to be dismissed and the parties were permitted to raise all
contentions before the competent authority under the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
3. Looking at the prayers in the writ petition, the challenge
lodged was against the show cause notice dated 24.11.2022
issued to petitioner No.2 in respect of Survey No.21, House
No.448, AGB Layout (G+3F), Chikkabanavar, as also to the similar
notice of even date issued to petitioner No.3 in respect of Survey
No.21, House No.449, AGB Layout (GF), Chikkabanavar. They
were the notices issued by the competent authority under the
Public Premises Act, on the ground that the respective petitioners
NC: 2024:KHC:17654-DB
had unauthorisedly encroached the railway land to the extent
indicated in the notice.
4. The contention raised by the petitioners before the learned
Single Judge was that the said lands could not have been
subjected to the proceedings under the Act, as the lands were not
'public premises' as defined under Section 2(e) of the 1971 Act.
4.1 On the other hand, learned Central Government Counsel for
the Railways submitted that the lands were already acquired in the
year 2005 and became the lands of railways to satisfy the definition
of 'public premises'.
5. Learned Single Judge has not gone into the merits of the
rival contentions while disposing of the writ petition, observing that
since the petitioners have already entered appearance before the
competent authority, have filed the pleadings and that the battle
lines are drawn, all the contentions including the jurisdictional facts
shall be looked into by the competent authority where the
proceedings are pending to be taken up.
6. In the facts of the case, having heard learned advocates for
the parties and in view of providence in the order by learned Single
NC: 2024:KHC:17654-DB
Judge, this Court does not see any reason to interject with the
order of learned Single Judge who has kept all the contentions
including the jurisdictional aspect open to be raised in accordance
with law, before the competent authority by both sides.
7. No case is made out for interference in the appellate
jurisdiction. The appeal is dismissed.
It goes without saying that this Court has also not expressed
any opinion on any aspect including the jurisdictional aspect.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory
applications would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed
of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MV
