Disposed

The Estate Officer v. Kgf Tamil Sangham

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2023WP/35522/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash an order setting aside an ex-parte eviction order under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. The Court, noting the petitioner's intent to initiate fresh proceedings, disposed of the petition without substantive interference but directed the respondents to cooperate regarding alleged land alterations.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without interference; respondents directed to cooperate regarding land alterations.

The Estate Officer Vs Kgf Tamil Sangham — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 35522 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 35522 OF 2018 (GM-PP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE ESTATE OFFICER, M/S. BHARATH GOLD MINES LTD., SUVARNA BHAVAN, OOARGAUM POST, K.G.F, REPRESENTED BY ITS ESTATE OFFICER.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. T. RAJARAM, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KGF TAMIL SANGHAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI. S. KALAIARASAN, S/O. LATE SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI ANBARASAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. KALAIRASAN, TREASURER TAMIL SANGHAM,

¶15

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT TAMIL SANGHAM PREMISES,

¶16

¶17

WP No. 35522 of 2018

¶18

DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, OOARGAUM RAILWAY STATION, ROA, OOARGAUM, KGF - 563 120. (WRONGLY SHOWN IN THE CAUSE TITLE) RESIDING AT: NO.80, KENNEDY'S 4TH LINE, OOARGAUM, KGF - 563 120.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI SACHIN V.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶21

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE KOLAR IN MA NO.20/2018 DATED 2.8.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Challenging order dated 02.08.2018 passed by III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolar in MA.no.20/2018 (Annexure-A), this writ petition is filed.

¶25

Brief facts as stated are that; schedule property as mentioned in detail in Annexure-J, is claimed to be belonging to petitioner and respondent stated to be in unauthorized occupation of same. Vide notice dated 17.05.2018, petitioner called upon respondent to vacate premises, failing which,

¶26

¶27

WP No. 35522 of 2018

¶28

proceedings under Section 4 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act , 1971 (for short, 'Act') would be initiated. Date of appearance shown in said notice 23.05.2018. On said date, since respondent did not appear, the Estate Officer held proceedings, proceeded to pass exparte order of eviction. Challenging said order, respondent filed Miscellaneous Appeal before District and Sessions Judge.

¶29

On consideration, learned District Judge has passed impugned order. Learned District Judge has set aside impugned order for non-compliance of Sections 4 and 5 of Act, however reserved liberty to petitioner to initiate fresh eviction proceedings, in accordance with law.

¶30

During course of hearing, learned counsel for respondents submitted that there was violation of principles of natural justice as adequate opportunity was not provided to respondent to appear and contest before Estate Officer.

¶31

In reply, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner would issue fresh notice in accordance with law and thereafter take up proceedings for eviction.

¶32

¶33

WP No. 35522 of 2018

¶34

On perusal of notice issued and impugned order passed, I do not see any good ground to interfere with the same. Since petitioner is seeking to initiate fresh proceedings, reserving liberty to petitioner to do so, writ petition would not survive for consideration.

¶35

Since it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that respondent is putting up construction and altering nature of land, I deem it fit to direct respondents to co-operate for early conclusion of proceedings.

¶36

With above observations, writ petition is disposed of.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Mkm

The Estate Officer v. Kgf Tamil Sangham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Estate Officer v. Kgf Tamil Sangham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri N C Mohan Vs Karnataka Medical Council

Sri. Lakshmi Venkateshwara Marbles Vs the State of Karnataka

N B Nanjundaiah Vs N N Yalaiahswamy

Ningamma Vs the Land Acquisition Officer and

Sri H K Gurumurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M a Ratnakar Shet Vs Sri S P Lokesh