Sri G M Mahadeva Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri G M Mahadeva Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ appeal should succeed in setting aside the learned single Judge's order dated 09.11.2021 in WP 8137/2021 and permitting the appellant to withdraw his writ petition as not pressed. +1 more

Court's answer

The writ petition contains no averment regarding any valid allotment of the house in question in favour of the writ appellant.

Ratio / Principle

Given the facts and circumstances of the case (including the history of repeated adjournments since 2021), the Bench declined to accede to the further adjournment sought on the ground of illness of the appellant's counsel.

Key takeaways

Perusal showed the occupation of the house to be unauthorised and that the petitioner had tried to set up a case of adverse possession.ratio¶99
The order of the learned single Judge reflects gross abuse on the part of the petitioner in unauthorisedly occupying, for the last 21 years without any allotment in his name, a house constructed by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Dismissed (DB): WA No. 1383 of 2021 (LB-RES), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, 20.08.2025 (Jayant Banerji & Umesh M Adiga, JJ.; oral judgment per Banerji J.). Appeal under S.4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the single Judge's order dated 09.11.2021 in WP 8137/2021, which dismissed the appellant's writ petition - by a person in unauthorised occupation since 2000 of one of 208 unallotted MUDA-constructed houses, claiming allotment on an alleged verbal assurance of the then engineers and on adverse possession, and pressing the claim before the State SC/ST Commission, the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission and the National Commission for Scheduled Caste after MUDA's Endorsement dated 25.01.2021 rejected it - as a gross abuse of process, with costs of Rs.6,00,000/- (quantified at Rs.30,000/- per year of unauthorised occupation; Rs.1,000/- per day on default), payable to MUDA, and directions to prosecute and remove unauthorised occupants. After earlier dismissal for office-objection defaults and restoration on 20.01.2024, the Division Bench refused a further adjournment sought on the counsel's illness, perused the record, noted that the writ petition contained no averment of any valid allotment and that the occupation was unauthorised, found no reason to interfere with the 'considered and well reasoned' order, and dismissed the appeal.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 09.11.2021 of the learned single Judge in WP.No.8137/2021 dismissing the appellant's writ petition as a gross abuse of process, with costs of Rs.6,00,000/- payable to MUDA and directions to prosecute and remove unauthorised occupants of Government houses.¶58
Learned single Judge, High Court of Karnataka · 09.11.2021
Prior proceeding
Petitioner (now appellant) claimed occupation of the subject MUDA-constructed house since the year 2000 on the alleged verbal assurance of the then engineers.¶65
Prior proceeding
Petitioner approached the Chief Minister (Letter dated 22.02.2016) and the Commission for Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Letter dated 04.03.2016) seeking allotment of the subject house on the basis of adverse possession, offering to pay by installments.¶67
Prior proceeding
Complaints to the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission (case registered vide Order dated 16.04.2016; MUDA Commissioner directed to report within six weeks), the State SC/ST Commission (Notice dated 08.03.2016) and the National Commission for Scheduled Caste.¶70
Prior proceeding
MUDA rejected the petitioner's claim vide Endorsement dated 25.01.2021, deciding that all vacant houses would be disposed of by auction in accordance with the extant Rules.¶71
Prior proceeding
MUDA's petition W.P.No.8020/2015 (GM-RES) was disposed of in its favour on the same day as the impugned order, and the petitioner's proceedings before the SC/ST Commission were set at naught.¶81
Prior proceeding
Writ appeal filed in 2021; several office objections raised; time granted on 18.04.2022 (two weeks), 18.07.2022 (one week) and 14.10.2022 (two weeks), with a direction that non-compliance would cause the appeal to stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.¶35
Prior proceeding
After the dismissal, certain I.A.s were filed for recalling the order of dismissal and for condonation of delay.¶38
Prior proceeding
By order dated 10.11.2023, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 were dismissed as not pressed; for consideration of I.A.Nos.4 and 3 of 2023 the learned counsel was directed to keep the appellant physically present.¶40
Prior proceeding
On 20.01.2024, with counsel and appellant present, I.A.Nos.4 and 3 of 2023 were allowed, delay condoned and the appeal restored to its original file, with a further direction to produce the appellant as and when directed.¶42
Prior proceeding
After further time grants on 05.09.2024 and 27.01.2025, on 24.02.2025 two office objections were overruled and the matter directed to be listed for admission.¶47
Prior proceeding
At the admission hearing on 20.08.2025 the repeated adjournment request (illness of the appellant's counsel) was declined; the brief holder, appearing online, expressed inability to argue, and the Bench perused the record of the writ appeal for its consideration.¶57