B BALACHANDRAN Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, Petitioner is challenging the order dated 05.02.11 passed by the I Addl. District Judge, D.K., Mangalore, dismissing M.A. No. 8/10 filed by the Petitioner under Section 10 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 ('the Act' for abort). The appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar-Belthangady directing eviction of the Petitioner herein from the property bearing Sy. Nos. 173-7A3A1A1P5 measuring 0.14 acre and Sy. No. 173-6D1P1 measuring 0.36 acre situated at Belthangady tillage and taluk vide order dated 04.10.2010 produced at Annexure-B.

(2.) The 1st Respondent-Tahsildar recorded a finding that the property in question conformed to the definition of 'public premises' under the Act and the Petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the same arid therefore liable to be evicted. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The Petitioner contended that the Tahsildar was not the competent officer to initiate the eviction proceedings under the Act. Several other contentions were also raked. The learned District Judge referring to Rule 9 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1980 has held that the Tabsildar in charge of the concerned Muzarai or Religious Charitable Institutions is the competent officer for the purpose of the Act and therefore, the order passed by him did not suffer from any illegality or error of jurisdiction, Accordingly the learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal Aggrieved by these two orders, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned AGA and the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2.