1. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, theses cases are being decided at this stage itself.

2. Since both these writ petitions challenge the same action of the respondents viz. issuance of notice under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (the Act for brevity), both the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The facts are being taken in Writ Petition Nos. 28024 to 28036 of 2015.

4. In these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notice dated 8-6-2015 issued under the above mentioned section of the Act. It is the case of the petitioners that they happen to be the absolute owners of the site bearing Municipal Khatha No. 3250/35 situated at New Extension, 1st Division, Chinthamani Town, measuring 45 feet East to West and 15+25/2 feet North to South. The first petitioner had purchased the said property from its original owner under a registered sale deed dated 4-6-1991. Subsequently, he obtained Khatha in his name. Ever since 1991, he has been paying the taxes to the Corporation. After getting the sanctioned plan approved and after getting a licence for the construction in the year 1997, he has constructed a three storied building in the said land. The other petitioners in the said petitions likewise have purchased their sites on different dates. According to them, they have the khatha in their names; after getting the sanctioned plan approved, they too have constructed the house for different stories. Common plea of all these petitioners is that all the sites belong to a layout located in, Survey Nos. 71, 70, 68, 66, 75 and re-survey Nos. 25, 39, 24 of Mallapahalli Village, Kasba Hobli, Chinthamani Taluk.

5. However, on 8-6-2015 they were served with a notice issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagarasabe, Chintamani wherein he has directed them to vacate the premises within 45 days. In case they were not to vacate the site within the stipulated period, then appropriate action would be taken against them and they would be evicted from the said sites. Even the expenditure incurred for carrying out such eviction shall be recovered from them. Hence these petitions before this Court.

6. Mr. Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that under the Act, the requirement of law is that initially a show-cause notice has to be issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the persons who are likely to be evicted from the public premises that an order directing their eviction under Section 5 of the Act can be passed. However in the present case no notice has been issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Although impugned the notice claims that it is a notice under Section 4(1) of the Act, but a perusal of the notice, according to the learned Counsel, would reveal that the requirement of Section 4(1) of the Act has not been complied with the notice. Therefore the notice has not been issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, but seems to have been issued under Section 5 of the Act without following the procedures established by law. Thus the notice is not tenable in law.

7. Secondly, that the impugned notice mentions an order dated 28-8-2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapur District. However the appeal which was pending before the Deputy Commissioner and which came to be decided on 28-8-2013 does not concern the petitioners as the petitioners were not even parties to the said proceedings. Therefore the very basis for directing the eviction of the petitioners is misplaced.

8. Thirdly, the petitioners have brought the sites through registered sale deeds; they have khathas in their favour; they have constructed their houses only after getting plans sanctioned from the Competent Authority. Despite their living and enjoying the peaceful possession of the property, suddenly they have been threatened with eviction. Therefore their right to shel