AFROZ PASHA @ APPU Vs. MASJID-E-AZAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the present writ petition has sought for a writ of certiorari to declare the order dated 26.04.2016 made in No.PP/58/MYE/2003-04 passed by the second respondent/Competent Officer, vide Annexure-A, as illegal and to quash the judgment dated 20.11.2017 made in M.A. No.19/2016 passed by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, Annexure- B, as illegal.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the premises measuring 13 feet x 35 feet situated at Lashkar Mohalla, Mysuru, was belonging to Masjid-E-Azam/first respondent, which is a wakf institution. The petitioner was in actual possession of an additional area of 40 ft x 45 ft together. These two portions were being used as small scale industry viz., fixing nails (laala/reed) to the hoofs of oxen and horses. When things stood thus, the second respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974, ('the Act' for short), in respect of both the portions and petitioner was dispossessed from the entire premises including the premises not belonging to the first respondent. It is further contended that the Competent Officer/second respondent, by the Order dated 11.12.2006, directed the petitioner to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the first respondent, within 45 days from the date of publication of the Order. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner filed an appeal in M.A.No.4/2007 under the provisions of Section 10 of the 'Act' before the II Addl. District Judge, Mysuru, who, after hearing both the parties, by the judgment dated 19.01.2009, allowed the appeal and setaside the Order passed by the second respondent and remanded the matter to the second respondent with a direction to provide an opportunity to both the petitioner and the first respondent to adduce their further evidence and to produce documents, if any, and thereafter dispose of the matter afresh, in accordance with law.

(3.) It is further case of the petitioner that after remand, again the second respondent, by the Order dated 22.04.2010 directed the petitioner to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the property to the first respondent. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner filed M.A.No. 29/2010 before the III Addl. District Judge, Mysuru, who after hearing both the parties, by the judgment dated 15.03.2011, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the second respondent for fresh disposal, in the light of the observation made in the said M.A.No.29/2010. After remand for the second time, the second respondent, considering the entire material on record, by the impugned Order dated 26.04.2016, vide Annexure-A exercising powers under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the 'Act', directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within 45 days of the date of publication of the Order. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner filed M.A.No.19/2016 on the file of the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, who after hearing both the parties, by the impugned Order dated 20.11.2017, dismissed the appeal. Hence the present writ petition is filed.