Sri Ashok Chand Vs Sri Srinivasamandira Charities

SRI ASHOK CHAND S/O SANTOKCHAND, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.69-72, 73/1, 73/2, 74-76 AND 139-141, SRI. SRINIVASAMANDIRA CHARITIES PROPERTY BALEPETE MAIN ROAD, BALEPETE, BENGALURU

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. MOHANA KUMARI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHESHA., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI SRINIVASAMANDIRA CHARITIES BALEPET, BENGALURU 560053. REP. BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MUZARAI WORKS, CITY RANGE, 3^RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, V.V.TOWER, BENGALURU 560 001

¶16

HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER KPPA ACT. MAHADESWARA VARTHA BHAVAN, VENKATARAO ROAD,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15760 WP No. 19889 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CHAMARAJPET-560 018. REP. BY COMMISSIONER

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI FURTHER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE XLIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEALNO.69/2022. B) TO AWARD COST OF THIS PETITION.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The material on record discloses that respondent No.1, being the competent authority in respect of a “public premises” within the meaning of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short, ‘the Act’), had initially issued a notice dated 09.10.2014 calling upon him to hand over vacant possession. In spite of such termination, the petitioner

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15760 WP No. 19889 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

continued in occupation. Consequently, proceedings were initiated before respondent No.2 – the Estate Officer under the provisions of the Act. The records further reveal that sufficient and reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to contest the proceedings. However, the petitioner failed to place any cogent or documentary evidence to substantiate his claim of lawful occupation or subsisting tenancy, thereby rendering his defence wholly untenable in the eye of law.

¶30

A close scrutiny of the order passed by the Estate Officer as well as the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court in M.A.No.69/2022 would indicate that the foundational facts are not in serious dispute. It is not disputed that the subject property answers the description of “public premises” under the Act. Once the character of the property as public premises is established, the statutory scheme of the Act, which is a special enactment intended to provide a speedy and summary mechanism for eviction of unauthorized occupants from public property,

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15760 WP No. 19889 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

comes into operation. The Act significantly curtails the scope of defence available to an occupant and casts a burden on such occupant to demonstrate a valid and subsisting authority to remain in possession.

¶34

In the present case, though the petitioner has sought to assert that he was inducted into possession under a lease, he has conspicuously failed to produce either the original lease deed or any material evidencing renewal or continuation of such lease. On the contrary, the records disclose that the Estate Officer had issued notice in Form ‘A’ on 04.09.2020, as contemplated under the Act, and the petitioner, despite entering appearance, did not choose to adduce any evidence. In proceedings under the Act, once the authority establishes that the premises is a public premises and that the occupation is without authority, the onus shifts heavily on the occupant to justify his possession. The petitioner having failed to discharge

¶35

this statutory burden, the Estate Officer, upon appreciation of the available material, has rightly recorded a finding

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:15760 WP No. 19889 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation and consequently ordered eviction by order dated 11.11.2021 in Case No.ADM7/PPA/CR71/2020-21.

¶40

The Appellate Court, while exercising

¶41

jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Act, has reappreciated the entire material on record and has concurred with the findings recorded by the Estate Officer.

¶42

The Appellate Court has rightly observed that in the absence of any documentary proof of a valid lease or renewal, the petitioner cannot claim any legal right to continue in possession of public premises.

¶43

The concurrent findings recorded by both the authorities below clearly establish that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant. It is trite that the object of the Act is to ensure expeditious recovery of public property from persons who continue in occupation without lawful authority and to prevent misuse or unauthorized retention of such property. In such proceedings, the scope of

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:15760 WP No. 19889 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

interference under writ jurisdiction is extremely limited, particularly when the findings are based on appreciation of facts and no perversity or jurisdictional error is demonstrated.

¶48

The grounds urged in the present petition do not disclose any illegality, arbitrariness or infirmity in the impugned orders. The petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Court.

¶49

Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

¶50

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶51

CA

¶52

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14

Sri Ashok Chand v. Sri Srinivasamandira Charities

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ashok Chand v. Sri Srinivasamandira Charities

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Vilas Enterprises Vs Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd.

Vijay Association (Regd) Vs the State of Karnataka

Anjan Friends Sports and Recreation Association Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. R. Ravindra Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Shriram Gic Ltd. Vs Smt Saira Banu

Sri. Nagaraj Vs the General Manager