Disposed

Sri C M Lingaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2023WP/7618/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash a government circular and eviction notice regarding municipal shop lessees. The Court held that petitioners' failure to vacate after five years violates the Karnataka Municipalities Act. Consequently, the Court directed the Municipal Council to blacklist petitioners from future allotments.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Town Municipal Council to blacklist the petitioners and ensure they never receive future allotments of municipal shops or premises, in addition to following existing eviction procedures d

Sri C M Lingaraju Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:25805 WP No. 7618 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.7618 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI C M LINGARAJU

¶9

S/O LATE C V MARULAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT NEAR NEHARU CIRCLE CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI-572214 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶10

SRI GURUMURTHY

¶11

C/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

R/O PRIVATE BUS STAND CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI-572214 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶14

SRI NAVEENKUMAR

¶15

S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH

¶16

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶17

R/O PRIVATE BUS STAND CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI-572214 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶18

SMT H K SRILAKSHMI W/O C R NAVEENKUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 EARS,

¶19

R/AT OPP GOVERNMENT COLLEGE

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:25805 WP No. 7618 of 2023

¶22

CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI-572214 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶23

SRI BABU SAHEB S/O MOHIYUDDIN SAB AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT 11TH WARD BASAVESHWARA NAGARA CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI-572214 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶24

SMT ANITHA W/O C S RAMU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O MAHALAKSHMI EXTENSION CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI-572214 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶25

SRI SHIVANNA S/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O MAHALAKSHMI EXTENSION CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI-572214 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶26

…PETITIONERS

¶27

(BY SMT. ASHA.S, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001.

¶30

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:25805 WP No. 7618 of 2023

¶33

TUMAKURU-572101

¶34

THE TOWN MUNICIPALITY CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI-572214 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI. V.G. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR IN NO.NAAE 301 GEL 2017 DTD 19.07.2019 OF THE R-1 IN ANNX-A AND TO QUASH THE NOTICE IN NO.PU.CHI.CUM.SHA/CR NO.06.2022-23 DTD 02.03.2023 IN ANNX-E AND ETC.,

¶38

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶41

Learned Counsel for the respondent-Town Municipal

¶42

Council, Chikkanayakanahalli, submits that under similar circumstances when a few other lessees of the shops belonging to the Town Municipal Council had approached this Court in W.P.No.8612/2018 and connected matters, seeking to quash the Circular dated 14.08.2015, issued by the State Government, on the ground that provision was

¶43

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25805 WP No. 7618 of 2023

¶44

made in the Circular to evict the unauthorized occupants

¶45

of the shops without following the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974, (for short ‘KPP Act’), the coordinate Bench disposed of those writ petitions recording the submission of the learned Counsel for the Municipality that recourse shall be had to the provisions contained in the Act, before the unauthorized occupants are evicted.

¶46

The learned Counsel for the respondent-Town Municipal Council, would further submit that the petitioners have admittedly squatted over the property belonging to the Municipality beyond the period of lease, which would be in clear contravention of Section 72 of the

¶47

Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. Learned Counsel submits that sub-section (2) of Section 72 clearly provides that no premises of the Municipality shall be granted on lease for more than five years without the prior permission

¶48

of the Government. That being the position, the Municipality, following the Circular issued by the State

¶49

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:25805 WP No. 7618 of 2023

¶50

Government, has put up the shop premises for public auction. It is open for the petitioners to participate in the public auction and if they are successful, they can continue to be lessees under the Municipality. However, their continuation on the premises on the ground that they should be evicted only after following the provisions of the KPP Act, will be in contravention of Section 72 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act.

¶51

Nevertheless, in view of the directions being given by this Court in the case of Muralidhara and others /vs./ State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.8612/2018 and connected matters , by order dated 31.05.2023 directing the respondent - Town Municipal Council, Chikkanayakanahalli to follow the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 and that the Municipality shall not forcibly evict the petitioners, similar relief is required to be given to the petitioners also. However, in view of the fact that the continuation of the

¶52

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25805 WP No. 7618 of 2023

¶53

petitioners in the premises belonging to the respondent -

¶54

Town Municipal Council beyond a period of 5 years as contemplated under Section 72 of the Act would be in clear violation of the said provisions, and that the petitioners are insisting that they should be evicted only after following due process of law, the respondent - Town Municipality is hereby directed to blacklist the writ petitioners and ensure that the shops and premises belonging to the Town Municipality shall never be allotted or granted in any manner to the petitioners, in the future.

¶55

Similar direction shall also follow in respect of all the present lessese who have continued beyond the period of lease and insist that they should be evicted only in

¶56

accordance with law.

¶57

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

KLY

Sri C M Lingaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C M Lingaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Vibha v Kamath Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.H.Ramaiah Vs the Commissioner

The Archbishop of Bangalore, Vs Mr Harishchandra Shetty

Mrs. P.Radhamma Vs Mr Jayasheel G

The Karnataka Government Class-D Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayalakshmi Vs Shivamogga-Bhadravathi