Disposed¶42

Sri Jayaramu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Apr 2026WP/12397/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 12397 of 2026 (LB-RES); Jayaramu v. State of Karnataka, Town Panchayat Pandavapura & Deputy Commissioner, Mandya; expired lease/license of Pandavapura Bus Stand shop nos. 3 and 7 (renumbered 12 and 11); public auction notification No. PU.SA.KAA.PAAM/KAM.SHAA/EHARAAJU/01/2025-26 dated 20.03.2026; eviction only in the manner known to law; recovery of mesne profits; Articles 226 & 227 Constitution of India; Justice M.I. Arun; disposed on 17 April 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: respondent No.2 permitted to auction the shops as contemplated in law; petitioner, if not already evicted, to be evicted only in the manner known to law; liberty to respondent No.2 to recover mesne profits through appropriate proceedings; pending I.As. disposed of. ¶42

Sri Jayaramu Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose term of lease/license over the shops has expired, can be dispossessed of the property otherwise than in the manner known to law. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

A person can be dispossessed of Government property only in the manner known to law and not otherwise; however, the petitioner does not have the right to cling on to the property in violation of the law when the lease/license period is already over.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2 is at liberty to auction the property as contemplated in law.

¶36

Key takeaways

If the petitioner has not already been evicted, respondent No.2 shall evict the petitioner only in the manner known to law and not otherwise.ratio¶40
As the petitioner is said to have overstayed in the property, liberty is granted to respondent No.2 to recover mesne profits from the petitioner by initiating appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 challenging a public auction notification dated 20.03.2026 issued by the Town Panchayat Pandavapura in respect of bus-stand shops (nos. 3 and 7, renumbered 12 and 11) leased to the petitioner on 20.02.2003 for 2 years 11 months, whose term had expired. Held: while a person can be dispossessed of Government property only in the manner known to law, an ex-lessee cannot cling on to the property after expiry of the lease/license. Petition disposed of permitting the Panchayat to proceed with the auction, directing that any eviction be effected only in the manner known to law, and granting liberty to recover mesne profits from the overstaying petitioner through appropriate proceedings.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21195 WP No. 12397 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.12397 OF 2026 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI JAYARAMU S/O MARIGOWDA, MERCHANT OF SHOP NOS.3 AND 7, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.16 WARD, BEHIND POST OFFICE, V C COLONY, PANDAVAPURA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT-571434. (SHOP NO-3, NOW RENUMBERED AS SHOP NO.12) (SHOP NO-7, NOW RENUMBERED AS SHOP NO.11) …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DHANANJAY K M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001

¶14

THE TOWN PANCHAYAT PANDAVAPURA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:21195 WP No. 12397 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R3; SRI. G. M. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC AUCTION BEARING NO. PU.SA.KAA.PAAM/KAM.SHAA/EHARAAJU/01/2025-26 DATED 20.03.2026 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO SHOP NOS.3 AND 7 (NOW RENUMBERED AS SHOP NOS.12 AND 11 AS PER THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.03.2026) WHICH ARE UNDER THE OCCUPATION OF PETITIONER IS CONCERNED; ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is said to have been allotted shop Nos.3

¶26

and 7 at Pandavapura Bus Stand by respondent No.2 on

¶27

lease on 20.02.2003 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 shops are brought to auction and the auction is scheduled on 23.04.2026.

¶28

In spite of issuing notice to the petitioner, he has not vacated the same and has challenged the action of

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:21195 WP No. 12397 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

respondent No.2 in bringing the said shops for auction in the present writ petition.

¶33

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.

¶34

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 as to whether the petitioner is still in possession of the property or not. Hence, the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to auction the property as contemplated in law;

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:21195 WP No. 12397 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

ii. If the petitioner has not already been evicted, respondent No.2 shall evict the petitioner only in the manner known to law and not otherwise;

¶41

iii. As the petitioner is said to have overstayed in the property, liberty is granted to respondent No.2 to recover mesne profits from the petitioner by initiating appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law;

¶42

iv. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶43

v. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶44

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶45

hkh. List No.: 4 Sl No.: 2

Sri Jayaramu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jayaramu v. 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. Siddalingaswamigalu Matadhipathi of Virupaksha Wodeyar Mutt Vs the Administrator

Smt Bhagyamma Vs the Executive Officer

Shri. Yogendra Raj Vs the Commissioner

Sri Mohammed Suhail Sait Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Vincent D Souza Vs Deputy Commissioner