Karnataka High Court
Sri. Janardhan vs State Of Karnataka on 23 October, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42533-DB
WA No. 1040 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1040 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. JANARDHAN
S/O LATE GANAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
PROPRIETOR: DC CANTEEN
D.C.OFFICE COMPOUND
KANDAYA BHAVANA
BANGALORE-560 009
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
G. VASUDEVAN
S/O GANAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
D.C.OFFICE COMPOUND
KANDAYA BHAVANA
Digitally signed BANGALORE-560 009
by SHAKAMBARI
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTEMNT
M.S.BUILDING
VIDHANA VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 009
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42533-DB
WA No. 1040 of 2023
3. THASHILDAR
NORTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVANA
BENGALURU-560 009
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE ORDER DIRECTING TO QUIT PREMISES AND DIRECTION
TO USE POLICE FORCE TO REMOVE PHYSICALLY FROM THE
PREMISES AND FURTHER TAKING CONTEMPT ACTION AS
ORDERED IN WP 15835/2023 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
DATED 27/07/2023.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Heard Sri Rameshchandra, learned counsel for the
appellant and Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned AGA for
respondents and perused the Writ Appeal papers.
NC: 2024:KHC:42533-DB
2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order
dated 27.07.2023 passed in WP No.15835/2023 by the
learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the
intimation letter dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure-A) wherein
the appellant is directed to vacate the premises in
question and to hand over the same to the Tahsildar.
3. The licence period in respect of the premises in
question granted to the petitioner-appellant expired on
5.5.2022. Notices were issued on 25.12.2022 and
subsequently, on consideration of representation by the
petitioner-appellant, final notice was issued on
11.07.2023 asking the petitioner/appellant to vacate the
premises.
4. Learned Single Judge refused to interfere with
the said notice with observation as made at paragraph-5
of the impugned order which reads as follows:
"5. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the Petition papers, this
Court is broadly in agreement with the submission
made on behalf of the Respondents and therefore,
NC: 2024:KHC:42533-DB
declines indulgence. Where certain rights are given in
respect of immovable property for a particular period,
the right to seek extension cannot be assumed in the
absence of a text in the arrangement. The Court
cannot read something that is not there in the
arrangement namely the Joint Memo as rightly
contended by learned AGA. In the absence of right
and more particularly justiceable right, the Petition is
misconceived, to say the least."
5. Learned Single Judge granted three months
time for quitting the premises subject to making usual
payments and clearing all arrears. Further observed that,
if the appellant-petitioner does not quit, the respondents
can use Police force to remove him physically from the
premises.
6. No tenable ground is made out to interfere with
the impugned order. A person who is granted licence in
respect of a Government premises, on expiry of the
licence period, cannot continue to occupy the premises.
Moreover, the time was further extended on the joint
memo filed by the petitioner-appellant as well as
respondents in Writ Petition No.16622/2006 disposed of
NC: 2024:KHC:42533-DB
on 10.4.2008. The parties are bound by the terms of the
said joint memo.
7. In the meanwhile, the petitioner-appellant was
issued an endorsement dated 11.07.2023 rejecting his
request for extension of time and also asking him to
immediately vacate the premises in question. Respondent-
Tahsildar initiated proceedings under Section 4(c) of the
Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short 1974 Act) in proceedings
No.PPA/CR/01/2023-24 and the competent authority, by
order dated 29.07.2024 allowed the petition and directed
the petitioner-appellant to handover vacant possession of
the premises in question and in case of failure to comply
with order within 45 days, to take possession of the
premises. Challenging the said order, the petitioner-
appellant has filed MA 14/2024 before the Principal City
Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru under Section 10 of
1974 Act. The learned Principal City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru by order dated 22.08.2024 has passed
an interim order staying the operation and execution of
NC: 2024:KHC:42533-DB
the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the competent
authority under 1974 Act.
8. Since there is an interim order dated
22.08.2024 in MA No.14/2024 passed by the Principal City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, impugned order in
this appeal could be given effect to after disposal of said
MA. The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge shall take
note of the order dated 27.07.2023 in Writ Petition
No.15835/2023 and order dated 10.04.2008 in Writ
Petition No.16622/2006 and dispose of the MA
No.14/2024 expeditiously.
9. The Writ Appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
