The judgment emphasizes the definition of 'public premises' under the Karnataka Public Premises Act, 1974 and the binding effect of previous judgments on coordinate benches.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner aggrieved by the order dtd. 22/8/2022 passed in M.A.No.44/2022 on the file of 4th Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court) Ballari, confirming the order dtd. 18/2/2022 passed by the respondent under Sec. 5 of the Karnataka Public Premises (eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short).

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:

One M. Pandurang Shetty was the owner of the land in Sy.No.374/2 measuring 21 acres 43 guntas. The said land got converted into non-agricultural. The said M. Pandurang Shetty applied for formation of layout plan and the layout plan was approved. Thereafter the said M. Pandurang Shetty got formed a layout in Sy.No.374/2 and after formation of layout, he sold the sites to the intending purchasers. The petitioner is the one of the purchasers from the said M. Pandurang Shetty. The petitioner purchased the site No.262 formed in the Sy.No.374/2 measuring 40x30 situated at Ward No.30, Siraguppa under the registered sale deed dtd. 7/6/2016. The respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to demolish the house constructed in the area which is earmarked for park and playground. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the said notice. The competent authority, after due enquiry, passed an order under Sec. 5 of the Act directing the petitioner to demolish the building and to handover the vacant possession of the same. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal in M.A.No.44/2022. The appellate Court after considering the material on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Director, Planning Authority, Bengaluru approved the layout plan vide order dtd. 20/4/1995 and the said layout plan was modified vide Annexure-C by the respondent. As per the modified layout plan, the area which was demarcated for park and playground etc. permitted to form residential sites. He submits that the owner of the said land has not surrendered the site which had reserved for park and playground in favour of the respondent. He submits that the respondent has initiated proceedings only against few purchasers. There is no process of handing over the possession of the sites. He submits that the sites under reference does not fall within the definition of 'public premises' as defined under the Act. The proceedings initiated under the Act is without jurisdiction. The said aspect has not been considered by the appellate Court. He further submits that the petitioner after obtaining the construction permission has constructed the building. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that the original owner Sri M. Pandurang Shetty filed W.P.No.67950/2010. He submits that the original owner has pleaded in the writ petition that he has already handed over the civic amenities sites reserved for park, roads and playground in favour of the respondent in the year 1995-96 itself. He submits that the said writ petition came to be disposed of reserving liberty to the original owner to make an application for modification of layout plan to the Urban Development Authority. Further, it was clarified that modification of layout excluding the areas demarcated for park, roads and playground. He submits that the original owner without getting approval of modified layout plan from the Urban Development Authority has sold the sites situated in the area demarcated for park and playground. He placed reliance on the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.100862/2012 wherein similarly placed petitioners filed the writ petition challenging the eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent. Hence, he submits that the proceedings initiated by the respondent are in a