KAMALAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri.J.Augustin., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sharanabasappa M.Patil., learned HCGP for respondents 1,

(2.) and 4 have appeared in person. 2. The brief facts are these: It is stated that Smt.Kamalamma - petitioner is the owner and the possessor of the House No.2/3/165/2/3/93. The property of Smt.Manjula - fifth respondent is adjacent to the petitioner's house. It is stated that fifth respondent approached the Municipal Commissioner, TMC, Surpur alleging encroachment and illegal construction of one room in the open plot of her property and requested the Municipal Commissioner - third respondent to vacate the petitioner from the premises. The petitioner filed objections through her Advocate and asserted that she is in possession of the property since the time of her ancestors and also asserted her possession and title over the property and stated that the Commissioner has no authority in law to grant possession of the property and to evict her. However, the Commissioner without considering the objections and without hearing the petitioner, passed an order of eviction on 1/7/2016. It is this order that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents have urged several contentions.