Mrs Noor Jan Vs Union of India

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE NOTICE BEARING DATE 05.12.2025 IN E.R.L. CASE NO-11/2025 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT ESTATE OFFICER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, BENGALURU DIVISION, BENGALURU (PLACED AS ANNEXURE - A).

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:2583 WP No. 38496 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioners assert that they are residing in a property ad measuring 132.90 square meters in No.8, 12^th Cross, Vinobanagar, K.G. Halli, Bengaluru - 560 045, and the petitioners are aggrieved by the second respondent's Notice dated 05.12.2025 [Annexure-A] under Section 4 of the Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants] Act, 1971 [for short, 'the Act' ].

¶35

This Court has refused to grant interim order on 19.12.2025. Mr Clifton D' Rozario, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners' grievance with the second respondent's notice stems from the fact that [a] the notice is issued for a portion of the property measuring 54.31 square meters though the petitioners reside in the larger property in their own right, [b] the petitioners' title to such property cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under the Act and that is a matter to be decided in a

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:2583 WP No. 38496 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

duly instituted suit before a competent Court, [c] the second respondent is in a hurry to conclude the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act, which are summary in nature, without even furnishing the details of the survey that is purportedly conducted before issuance of the impugned show cause notice.

¶40

Sri Vinay Venugopal, the learned Central Government Counsel, for the respondents, is heard in the light of this grievance and the fact that the proceedings before the second respondent are underway. When queried, Sri Vinay Venugopal submits that if the petitioner makes an application with the Estate Officer asking for any detail of the survey that is conducted, those details will be furnished. This submission provides the context for disposal of the petition on the first aspect, and insofar as the other aspect viz., whether the Estate Officer can sustain the proceedings under the Act if the petitioners are residing in the subject property in

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:2583 WP No. 38496 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

their own right, it would suffice for this Court to observe that this is an aspect that must be duly considered by a reasoned order by the second respondent. As such, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

[a] The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to make an application with the Estate Officer for the details of the survey. The Estate Officer is called upon to consider the application and furnish the details.

¶47

[b] The second respondent, for a complete adjudication under the Act, is called upon to examine whether there is a dispute that should be adjudicated in a duly instituted suit before the competent Court.

¶48

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶49

AN/-

Mrs Noor Jan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Noor Jan v. Union of India

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

Promad Y Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Arvind Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Sagar K S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narasimha Raju, Vs State of Karnataka

The Regional Manager Vs Ravikumar

Mohammed Arif Anwar Vs the Enrolment Committee