General provisions prevail over special provisions in cases of conflict, and unauthorised occupants are not entitled to statutory protection under the Act of 1974.

( 1 ) THESE writ petitions are filed by the petitioners claiming that they are in possession of the house properties mentioned in their respective petitions which are situated on the first main road, gandhinagar presently in corporation, ward No. 27 seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent-corporation not to enter upon their respective properties on first main road, gandhinagar and not to demolish the structure put up without due process of law in some petitions. In some petitions they have sought for direction to the first respondent to allot the area falling under conservancy lane prescribing their respective premises by considering their representations in accordance with law, urging various legal contentions.

( 2 ) THESE petitions are heard together as the facts, grounds and the prayer sought for by them are common and the legal question that would arise for consideration of this court is one and the same. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, at the preliminary hearing stage, the following order is passed on merits.

( 3 ) THE petitioners in the first batch of petitions in writ petition nos. 20959 and 20960 of 2001 have contended that they are in lawful possession of respective premises pursuant to lease deed dated 16th february, 1954 executed by respondent-corporation in favour of the fathers of petitioners, pursuant to the said lease deed they have been in possession and put up structures and are in enjoyment of the same. They have also paid the taxes to the corporation in respect of the properties in question as per the documents produced by them in these petitions. Learned counsel for petitioners in these petitions Mr. Gowrishankar submits that, the premises in question is a public premises as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Karnataka public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1974 (in short 'the act of 1974') and therefore submitted that Provisions of the act are applicable to the facts of these cases. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the occupation of the petitioners in respect of the property in question after efflux of time mentioned in the lease deed has expired, first respondent-corporation has got a statutory obligation for issuing show-cause notice affording opportunity to the petitioners to state their case and thereafter conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 5 of the act of 1974 and thereafter, the possession of property in question should be recovered with due process of law. In support of this submission the learned counsel have placed strong reliance upon the judgments of the apex court in the case of ashoka marketing limited and another v punjab national bank and others and judgment of this court in c. Bhaskar v state of kamataka and others and m. r. s. Ramakrishnan v the assistant director of ex-servicemen welfare (district soldiers, sailors and airmen board), tiruchirapalli and others, in support of the proposition that corporation is not entitled to take law into their own hands and evict the petitioners forcibly without following the procedure contemplated under the Provisions of the act of 1974.

( 4 ) THE petitioners in the connected writ petitions further contended that the contentions taken on behalf of respondent-corporation that they have got power under Section 288-d of the kamataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (in short 'the act of 1976') to evict them without notice to the unauthorised occupants cannot be invoked and exercised in view of specific substantive right conferred upon the petitioners under sections 4 and 5 of the act of 1974 contending that the said Provisions of the act are special Provisions and that act would prevail over the Provisions of the act of 1976. Therefore, exercise of power under Section 288-d of the act which power confers upon either commissioner or his delegated authority without notice to the petitioners to remove the encroachment upon the