Competent Officer and Chief Officer Vs Sri.Dinakar S/O Keshav Shetty

Notice was issued to the respondent on 25.02.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶25

The respondent was a lessee of public premises. After the completion of the lease period, he voluntarily surrendered the possession of the premises to the petitioner. As things stood thus, a notice under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Act, 1974 on 08.09.2016. The respondent suitably replied to the notice on 03.10.2016. The Competent Officer and the Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council, Kumta, District Uttara Kannada, Karwar passed the order on 20.04.2017 and directed the respondent to pay damages in a sum of Rs.7,10,036/-. The respondent assailed order of the Competent Officer before the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar in Misc. Appeal No.24/2017. The Court vide order dated:22.02.2019 remitted the matter to the Competent Officer. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6797 WP No. 114263 of 2019

¶28

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

¶29

Suffice it to note that after the completion of the lease period, the respondent surrendered the possession of the public premises to the petitioner. The short controversy is about the direction to pay the damages and the remand of the matter to the Competent Officer. The order passed by the Competent Officer is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-H. I have perused the same minutely. The assessment of the damages is not in consonance with Rule 7 of KPP (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Rules, 1980. Needless to say, the parameters set down in Rule 7 are not adhered by the Competent Officer. In my view, the remand order is just and proper. Hence, I find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the District Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is dismissed.

¶30

The District Court passed the remand order in 2019, now we are in the month of April 2025. The Writ Petition was pending before this Court for almost six years and in view of

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6797 WP No. 114263 of 2019

¶33

the disposal of the Writ Petition, this Court deems it proper to direct to Competent Officer to take the case on board and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. The Competent Officer is directed to adhere to Rule 7 of the Karnataka Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1980.

¶34

5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶35

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶36

MRP,RH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Competent Officer and Chief Officer v. Sri.Dinakar S/O Keshav Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Competent Officer and Chief Officer v. Sri.Dinakar S/O Keshav Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Munavalli S/O. Hanumantappa, Vs State of Karnataka

Basavaraj S/O Adiveppa Holli Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.D. Mallikarjuna S/O Dhakya Naik Vs the Superintendent of Police

Smt.Girija W/O Girish Gacchinamani Vs Smt.Tippavva @ Laxmavva W/O Nagappa Devagiri

Shri M J Pradeep Vs the Commissioner

Competent Officer and Chief Officer Vs Sri.Vishnu S/O Narayan Naik