Karnataka High Court
Musafer S/O Abdul Ahmed Attar vs The Zilla Panchayat on 23 June, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7964
WP No. 103935 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 103935 OF 2025 (LB-UC)
BETWEEN:
1. MUZAFER S/O. ABDUL AHMED ATTAR,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. SHOP NO.20, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX,
HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.
2. MOHAMMADASLAM S/O. ABDUL KHADAR KHENI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. SHOP NO.17, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX,
HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.
3. RAJSHEKHARAPPA S/O. SHIDDAPPA KHABBUR,
AGE: 85 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. SHOP NO.19, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX,
HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.
4. SHABBIR S/O.MOHAMMAD YUSUF HANAJI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
VIJAYALAKSHMI
R/O. SHOP NO.16, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX,
M KANKUPPI HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 5. MOHAMMADMATIN S/O. ABDUL MAJID SHIRABADAGI,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
BENCH
R/O. SHOP NO.18, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX,
HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.
6. MUKAPPA S/O. PARAPPA MENASINAKAYI,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. SHOP NO.7, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX,
HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.
7. CHIDANANDA S/O. MRUTUNJAYA DIXIT,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. SHOP NO.2, TALUK PANCHAYAT COMPLEX,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7964
WP No. 103935 of 2025
HC-KAR
HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.
2. THE TALUK PANCHAYAT,
HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104,
BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
3. THE TALUK PANCHAYAT,
HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104,
BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.B. SUBBANNAVAR & SRI. G.D. PATIL, ADVs. FOR C/R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
(i) A WRIT IN A NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 10.06.2025 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.THAPAMHA/TA.PAM.KA/VAHI-
398/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE-C,
NO.THAPAMHA/TA.PAM.KA/VAHI-395/2025-26 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D, NO.THAPAMHA/TA.PAM.KA/VAHI-397/2025-26
VIDE ANNEXURE-E, NO. THAPAMHA/TA.PAM.KA/VAHI-
396/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, NO.
THAPAMHA/TA.PAM.KA/VAHI-394/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE-
G, NO. THAPAMHA/TA.PAM.KA/VAHI-388/2025-26 VIDE
ANNEXURE-H, NO. THAPAMHA/TA.PAM.KA/VAHI-38/2025-26
VIDE ANNEXURE-J.
(ii) A WRIT IN A NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED RESOLUTION DATED 21.05.2025 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-L.
(iii) A WRIT IN A NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 TO FOLLOW DUE PROCESS OF LAW
AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES
ACT AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7964
WP No. 103935 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned
counsel appearing for caveat/respondent No.2.
2. The petitioners are before this Court challenging
the order passed by the 2nd respondent by issuance of
impugned notices dated 10.06.2025 for eviction of the
petitioners from the properties in question.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners that they are tenants of shops bearing Nos.2,
7, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 at Taluka Panchayat Complex,
Hangal, since from more than 15 years. Their tenancy was
extended for a period of 3 years from 05.04.2021.
4. This being the state of affairs, respondent No.2
passed an order of eviction on 27.09.2023 directing
petitioners to vacate their premises. Aggrieved by the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7964
HC-KAR
same, petitioners approached the District Court by way of
appeal under Section 10 of the Karnataka Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short,
'the Act'). The appellate Court vide order dated
02.12.2024 allowed the appeal of the petitioners and
remanded the matter back to the 2nd respondent to
consider the matter in accordance with law by setting
aside the order of eviction passed under Section 5 of the
Act. Pursuant to remand, respondent No.2 issued notices
dated 10.06.2025 to vacate the premises within 7 days,
failing which appropriate action will be taken for eviction.
It is this eviction notice that is questioned by the
petitioners on the following grounds.
5. It is contended that the impugned notice of
eviction is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and liable to be
quashed. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent
has not followed the due process of law and without
authority and knowledge of respondent No.3, proceedings
are initiated. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not adhered to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7964
HC-KAR
the directions issued by the appellate authority i.e., the
District Court. Therefore, the entire action of respondent
No.2 in issuing notice of eviction as per Annexures-C, D, E,
F, G, H and J, is illegal and contrary to law. It is also
contended that respondent No.2 has not given a fair
opportunity of hearing, no oral evidence is recorded and
no documents were taken and without following the
directions of the District Court, passed the impugned
order. Therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
vehemently contends that the petition itself is not
maintainable. The impugned order is a notice of eviction.
Pursuant to the enquiry conducted by respondent No.2 on
remand by the learned District Judge, notices were
ordered and as petitioners did not approach the
respondents neither adduced any evidence nor placed any
material, impugned order is passed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7964
HC-KAR
7. Learned counsel for respondents further submits
that in case petitioners are aggrieved by said notices of
eviction, remedy is available to the petitioners to prefer an
application by challenging the same in the manner known
to law and not before this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It is contended that in the earlier
round of litigation, petitioners questioned the order of
eviction by filing miscellaneous appeal, hence the
petitioners aggrieved by these notices of eviction are at
liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law.
On all these grounds he seeks for dismissal of the petition.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners
and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the
material on record.
9. It is seen that petitioners are tenants and in
occupation of the premises belonging to 2nd respondent.
The order of eviction passed was challenged before the
Principal District Judge of Haveri, which came to be
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7964
HC-KAR
allowed and the impugned order of eviction was set aside
and matter was remanded back to the Chief Executive
Officer of Taluk Panchayat for fresh consideration and a
direction was also given to provide sufficient opportunity
to both parties for production of oral evidence and
documents required and thereafter pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law by adhering to the
observations made by the appellate Court.
10. It is seen that pursuant to the order of remand,
the present order of eviction is passed by the 2nd
respondent relying on a judgment in Writ Petition
No.15198/2021, which is not placed before this Court. The
tenure of notice of eviction does not fairly state as to
whether the recording of evidence and so also
opportunities having been given to petitioners and
documents having been taken on record and if petitioners
have participated pursuant to notice so issued by the 2nd
respondent, same is silent in the order and the notice of
eviction. Be that as it may, notices so issued by the 2nd
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7964
HC-KAR
respondent are questioned before this Court in this writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am
in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents
that present petition would not be maintainable before this
Court as petitioners will have to challenge these notices of
eviction before the appropriate authority in the manner
known to law, rather than approaching this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. It is not the case of petitioners that there is no
jurisdiction for respondent No.2 to pass such an order.
Under the circumstances, when there is alternative
efficacious remedy available, the petitioners will have to
exhaust the same before knocking the doors of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is
apparently seen that petitioners are tenants of the shops;
they have been in occupation of the shops since more than
15 years. Under the circumstances, petitioners will have to
be protected till they approach the proper
forum/authority/Court to challenge the order/notice of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7964
HC-KAR
eviction issued by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, I pass
the following:
ORDER
(i) This petition is disposed off as not
maintainable before this Court.
(ii) Petitioners are at liberty to approach the
appropriate authority/Court/forum to
challenge the order passed by the 2nd
respondent in the manner known to law.
Two weeks time is granted to petitioners to
approach the appropriate authority.
(iii) Respondents shall not evict the petitioners
till the application for interim prayer by the
appropriate authority is decided in
accordance with law.
(iv) It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
kmv
CT-MCK
