Disposed¶40

Sri Suresh Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2026WP/12361/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

lease expiry; municipal shop auction; Pandavapura Town Municipal Council; dispossession of Government property in manner known to law; mesne profits; overstaying lessee; Articles 226 & 227 certiorari; notification dated 20.03.2026; WP No. 12361 of 2026 (LB-RES); High Court of Karnataka; Justice M.I. Arun; NC: 2026:KHC:21526; 2026

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; respondent No.3 given liberty to auction the property as contemplated in law, to evict the petitioner (if not already evicted) only in the manner known to law, and to recover mesne profits through appropriate legal proceedings. ¶40

Sri Suresh Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose lease/license term over shop no.1 has expired, can be dispossessed only in the manner known to law. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

A person can be dispossessed of Government property only in the manner known to law and not otherwise.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner does not have the right to cling on to the property in violation of the law once the lease/license period is already over.

¶33

Key takeaways

Respondent No.3 is at liberty to auction the property as contemplated in law.ratio¶37
If the petitioner has not already been evicted, respondent No.3 shall evict him only in the manner known to law and not otherwise.ratio¶38
As the petitioner is said to have overstayed in the property, liberty is granted to respondent No.3 to recover mesne profits by initiating appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (M.I. Arun, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution filed by a former lessee of shop no.1 at Pandavapura Bus Stand, challenging the notification dated 20.03.2026 (Annexure-A) pursuant to which Pandavapura Town Municipal Council brought the shop to auction (scheduled 23.04.2026) after his lease dated 21.02.2003 for 2 years 11 months had expired. The Court held that although a person can be dispossessed of Government property only in the manner known to law, an ex-lessee has no right to cling on to the property once the lease/license period is over. Respondent No.3 was permitted to auction the property as contemplated in law, to evict the petitioner only in the manner known to law, and to recover mesne profits by initiating appropriate proceedings.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21526 WP No. 12361 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 12361 OF 2026 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SURESH KUMAR S/O S.SHIVARAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT THYAGARAJA COLONY PANADAVAPURA TOWN PANDAVAPURA MANDYA DISTRICT KARNATAKA-571 434.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S. SHEHINSHA ALI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION-2 AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4^TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT

¶16

MANDYA-571 401.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:21526 WP No. 12361 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

PANDAVAPURA TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PANDAVAPPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. G.M.ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING/STRIKING DOWN THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.03.2026 VIDE NO.Pu.sa.ka..pam/kam.sha/e-haraju/01/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is said to have been allotted shop no.1, situated at Pandavapura Bus Stand by respondent No.3 on lease on 21.02.2003 for a period of 2 years 11 months. The term of the lease / license has already been over. However, the petitioner has not vacated the premises. Now the said shop is brought to auction and the

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21526 WP No. 12361 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

auction is scheduled on 23.04.2026. In spite of issuing notice to the petitioner, he has not vacated the same and

¶31

has challenged the action of respondent No.3 in bringing the said shop for auction in the present writ petition.

¶32

The case of the petitioner is that, though his term of lease/license is over, he can be dispossessed of the property only in the manner known to law and not otherwise.

¶33

True, a person can be dispossessed of Government property only in the manner known to law and not otherwise. However, at the same time, the petitioner does not have the right to cling on to the property in violation of the law when the lease/license period of the property is already over. It is also not clear whether the petitioner is still in possession of the property or not. Hence, the following:

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21526 WP No. 12361 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. Respondent No.3 is at liberty to auction the property as contemplated in law.

¶38

ii. If the petitioner has not already been evicted, respondent No.3 shall evict the petitioner only in the manner known to law and not otherwise.

¶39

iii. As the petitioner is said to have overstayed in the property, liberty is granted to respondent No.3 to recover mesne profits from the petitioner by initiating appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law.

¶40

iv. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶41

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶42

PGG

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri Suresh Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Suresh Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri Jayaramu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Vincent D Souza Vs Deputy Commissioner

The Promont Residents Welfare Association Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

A R Ashok Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. M N Yeshodamma Vs the State of Karnataka