(1.) Petitioner who is directed to be ousted vide order dtd. 6/6/2017 made by the 2nd Respondent - Authorized Officer and his appeal against the same having been negatived by the learned XVII Addl City Civil Judge, Bangalore vide order dtd. 12/8/2022 is grieving before the Writ Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that his client having bought the subject property vide registered sale deed dtd. 25/2/2010, is not an 'unauthorized occupant' and therefore, impugned orders made under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1974, are liable to be voided.
(2.) Learned Panel Counsel Sri. B.S.Sachin, on request having accepted notice for the respondents opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned orders and the grounds on which they have been structured. He draws attention of the Court to the decision of Apex Court in SADHNA LODH vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD . (2003) 3 SCC 524 in support of his contention that a Writ Court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 cannot undertake a deeper examination of the matter, the two statutory authorities below, having recorded concurrent findings.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: