Karnataka High Court
Sumithra W/O. Shivanand Gunjal vs Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal ... on 18 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15805
WP No. 102505 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 102505 OF 2021 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SUMITHRA W/O SHIVANAND GUNJAL,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. STALL NO.3 BLOCK NO. GF-B1,
OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
2. BALKRISHNASA S/O GANGASA NIRANJAN,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. STALL NO.4 BLOCK NO. GF-B1,
OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
3. DEEPAK S/O MALLESHAPPA TAMBE,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. STALL NO.1 BLOCK NO. GF-B1,
OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN 4. NARAYAN S/O RUKMANNA TAMBE,
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/O. STALL NO.7 BLOCK NO. GF-BIV,
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.11.20 OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
12:45:40 +0530
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
5. ASHOK S/O SHANKARAPPA BANDARI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. STALL NO.3 BLOCK NO. GF-BIV,
OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
6. HULGAJI S/O HIRAJI KALAL,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. STALL NO.1 BLOCK NO. GF-B1,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15805
WP No. 102505 of 2021
HC-KAR
OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
7. FAYAZAHMED DILAWARSAB HOSUR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. STALL NO.2 BLOCK NO. GF-B1,
OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
8. MOHAMMAD ISMAILSAB S/O RASOOLSAB GARAG,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. STALL NO.8 BLOCK NO. GF-B1,
OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
9. BASHEER AHMED
S/O MOHAMMAD QASIM GADAGKAR,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. STALL NO.6 BLOCK NO. GF-B1,
OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
10. ALTAF HUSSAIN GULAM HUSSAIN SAVANUR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. STALL NO.11 BLOCK NO. GF-B1,
OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
11. BARATYHSA S/O KRISHNASA PAWAR,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. STALL NO.7 BLOCK NO. GF-B1,
OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
12. MALLESHAPPA S/O RUKMANNA TAMBEL,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
13. ABDUL RAZAK S/O ABDUL KARIM HUKKERI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15805
WP No. 102505 of 2021
HC-KAR
R/O. STALL NO.4 BLOCK NO. GF-B1,
OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
14. RAMAKANT S/O DAMODAR KAMAT,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. STALL NO.4 BLOCK NO. GF-02/2,
OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
15. MOHAN S/O RUKMANNA TAMBE,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. STALL NO.8 BLOCK NO. GF-BIV,
OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
16. KIRANKUMAR S/O CHANDRASHEKAR BANDHARI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. STALL NO.7 BLOCK NO. GF-BIII,
OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
17. RANGNATH S/O HANUMATHSA BADDI,
AGE: 71 YEARS; OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. STALL NO.1 BLOCK NO. GF-BIII,
OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
17A. GANAPATHI S/O RANGANATH BADDI,
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. HOUSE NO.15, MADIWALA NAGAR,
HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-581 113.
17B. SHANKAR S/O RANGANATH BADDI,
AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. HOUSE NO.15, MADIWALA NAGAR,
HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-581 113.
18. DILAVARSAB S/O FAKRUSAB HOSUR,
AGE: 70 YEARS; OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. STALL NO.2 BLOCK NO. GF-BI,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15805
WP No. 102505 of 2021
HC-KAR
OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
19. SHIRDAR S/O MALLESHAPPA TAMBE,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. BLOCK NO. GF-B3/4,
OLD HUBBALLI MARKET, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HUBBALLI-DHARWAD SMART
CITY LIMITED, $TH FLOOR, IT PARK,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
4. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
9TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R2 AND R4;
SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE
NOTICES BEARING NO.JZïrJA¹/PÀA.«./30/JAPÉn/14/2020-20 DATED
12/06/2020 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A, A1
TO A16 IN SO FAR AS THESE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15805
WP No. 102505 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India by the petitioners assailing the notices
dated 12.06.2020 issued by respondent No.1. The said notices
are marked at Annexures-A1 to A16.
2. In terms of the said notices, the petitioners are directed
to vacate the respective premises occupied by them within seven
days from the date of receipt of the notice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would content that
the petitioners are occupying the premises pursuant to a grant
made by the respondent/Corporation, which enabled them to
occupy the premises on payment of a licence fee.
4. It is further submitted that after the expiry of the tenure
of grant, the tenure has been extended from time to time, and
the petitioners have been paying rent, and the same has been
accepted by the respondent/Corporation.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15805
HC-KAR
5. It is the contention of the petitioners that the impugned
notices have been issued directing them to vacate the premises
on the ground that the respondent/Corporation proposes to
construct a shopping complex under the Smart City Project. It is
submitted that no such project has been sanctioned, and
therefore, there is no justification for asking the petitioners to
vacate the premises within seven days.
6. It is also urged that the notice to quit is issued without
hearing the petitioners and the petitioners are denied the
opportunity of representing their contentions.
7. In the alternative, it is submitted that the procedure
contemplated under law for evicting the persons in occupation of
such premises is governed by Section 4 of the Karnataka Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 19741, and
such procedure is not followed.
8. Referring to the statement of objection filed by the
respondent-Corporation, it is urged that the respondent/
Corporation has contended that the structures occupied by the
petitioners are in a dilapidated condition and pose a threat to the
For short, 'Act of 1974'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15805
HC-KAR
occupants as well as to the neighbours. It is the contention of
the petitioners that no such threat exists, and that contention is
raised only to evict the petitioners.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/
Corporation would submit that the petitioners were in occupation
of the premises based on the licences granted to them, and that
the tenure of the licence has expired long back. However, on
humanitarian consideration, the respondent/Corporation had
extended the tenure, and after expiry of such extended tenure
the notices were issued directing the petitioners to vacate the
premises, as the respondent/Corporation intends to build a new
shopping complex under the Smart City Project.
10. It is further submitted that the petitioners have
obtained interim orders challenging the said notices. It is urged
that, in the meantime, the old structures in the petition property
has dilapidated and the Public Works Department has conducted
an inspection and issued a certificate stating that the building
requires demolition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15805
HC-KAR
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by way of reply,
refers to a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in K.T.
Suresh and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others2, and
contends that even if the occupants are to be evicted, then the
procedure contemplated under Section 4 of Act of 1974 is
required to be followed.
12. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the
Bar and perused the records.
13. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the owners of the
petition premises; they are licencees. The licence period came to
an end long back. Under these circumstances, the petitioners
cannot raise a contention that they have a right to occupy the
premises cannot be accepted. Nevertheless, it is noticed that the
impugned orders are passed without hearing the petitioners and
reasonable time is not provided before passing the order for
eviction.
14. The Court is of the view that even in a situation where
the petitioners are to be evicted the notice cannot be issued to
the petitioners to vacate the premises in seven days given the
W.P.No.12105/2022 C/w W.P.Nos.4167/2022 and 13933/2023
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15805
HC-KAR
fact that the said time is not reasonable to find alternative
premises.
15. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the Court is of
the view that the petitioner should be given a reasonable
opportunity to submit the reply to the impugned notices treating
them as show cause notices.
16. The respondent/Corporation, shall consider the reply to
the show cause notices to be submitted by the petitioners and
thereafter shall pass appropriate orders.
17. The petitioners shall file objection to the impugned
notices issued by respondent/Corporation within 30 days from
today. The respondent/Corporation shall fix a date to hear the
petitioners and thereafter shall pass order in accordance with
law.
18. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) The Writ Petition is allowed in part.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15805
HC-KAR
b) The notices dated 12.06.2020 issued by
respondent No.1, marked as Anneuxres-A1 to
A-16 are treated as show cause notices.
c) The petitioners shall file the response to the
show cause notices within 30 days from
today and the respondent/Corporation
thereafter shall fix a date for hearing and
pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law.
d) It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed anything on the merits of the claim
of either of the parties.
e) All contentions kept open.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
PMP
CT:BCK
