CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellants have filed the present intra-court appeal impugning an order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.6015/2018 (GM-PP). The appellants had filed the said petition impugning the order under Section 5 (1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 [the Act] directing that the residential quarters occupied by the appellants be vacated and further action be taken for recovery of the outstanding rent.

2. The appellants had filed appeals against the respective orders under Section 10 of the Act, which were dismissed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Mysore by an order dated 02.01.2018.

3. The appellants claim that they are descendants of persons who were employed by the Maharaja of Mysore to train horses. They were provided accommodation by virtue of them being employed by the Maharaja of Mysore. Subsequently, the said employees were absorbed by the Public Works Department [PWD], Government of Karnataka and continued to reside in the residential accommodation provided to them.

4. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants clarified that the respective husbands of the appellants were employed with PWD, and they were the descendants of the employees of the Maharaja of Mysore. It is undisputed that the residential quarters occupied by the appellants, from which they are sought to be evicted, are the properties of the Government of Karnataka, and the husbands of the appellants were permitted to reside in the said quarters by virtue of being employed with the Government.

5. The appellants, and such similarly placed persons, had made representations to the Government to sell and transfer the premises in question to them on lease-cum-sale basis. Some of the persons who were similarly placed, had also filed writ petitions, which were disposed of by this Court by an order dated 22.07.1999 (WP.No.20499/1997) directing the Government to consider their representations.

6. On 27.04.2013, the respondent passed a final order directing the appellants to vacate the premises occupied by them. These orders were challenged in the appeals which were allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent issued notices under Section 4 of the Act. The appellants filed their objections and an inquiry was conducted. The said proceedings culminated in the order dated 31.05.2016 passed by the respondent. As noted above, the appeals preferred by the appellants under Section 10 of the Act were disposed of by an order dated 02.01.2018 by the District Court.

7. It was the appellants' case before the District Court that the competent officer had not issued proper notices under Section 4 of the Act; he had not followed the procedure for conducting the inquiry in accordance with Section 9 of the Act; he had issued a common notice, which was not sustainable; and the order passed was contrary to the guidelines as set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Nusli Neville Wadia, reported in AIR 2008 SC 876.

8. The learned District Court noted that the following points arose for consideration.

"1. Whether the Competent Officer / Respondent has not followed the procedure while conducting enquiry?

2. Whether the Respondent has committed any error in passing impugned order and the same is not sustainable?

3. Whether the same is call for interference by this Court?"

9. The learned District Court did not accept the aforesaid contentions and decided the aforesaid questions against the appellants. Accordingly, the appeals preferred were dismissed.

10. The appellants filed the writ petition against the aforesaid order passed by the learned District Court. The learned Single Judge also found that the appellants were una