ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.--The Petitioner is a tender coconut vendor. He was doing the business in a small land in Sy. No. 70, Old No. 477/1 of Kowdenahalli village, which is now known as Ramamurthy Nagar. The said land belongs to the City Municipal Council, K.R. Puram. The Petitioner requested for allotment of the said land. By the endorsement at Annexure-C dated 5.7.1990 he was informed that suit filed by one Krishna Reddy is pending in respect of the said land and his request would be considered after disposal of the same. The Petitioner has produced copy of judgment of the said suit, which is dismissed. Thereafter the impugned endorsement at Annexure-G dated 16.5.2002 is issued rejecting the request of the Petitioner. The Petitioner while seeking to quash the same, a direction is sought to the 2nd Respondent to allow him to do his business in the same place. 2. Statement of objections is filed on behalf of 2nd Respondent denying the possession of the Petitioner on the land in question. It is stated that high mass electric poles are installed on the land in question and hence the land is not available now. Writ Petition is sought to be dismissed as not maintainable. 3. Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent cited the decision reported in Mohan P. Sonu Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR (1992) KAR 1219 wherein it is held that public premises shall not be allotted without following the procedure. 4. The fact that Petitioner was in possession of the land in question, though disputed by the 2nd Respondent in the statement of objections, is admitted in Annexure-C in which it is stated that spot inspection was conducted and the property in possession of the Petitioner was measured. Added to that, Annexure-A is the licence and Annexure-B is the receipt for having collected amount from the Petitioner. Moreover, Petitioner filed suit in O.S. No. 155 of 2001 in the City Civil Court, Bangalore against the 2nd Respondent. The Civil Court granted temporary injunction against the 2nd Respondent vide Annexure-D. All these documents prove the possession of the Petitioner. Hence, the stand taken in the statement of objections is wholly untenable and contradictory to the admitted fact. 5. The 2nd Respondent has not made any attempt to get the injunction order vacated. The Civil Court granted temporary injunction against the 2nd Respondent vide Annexure-D. All these documents prove the possession of the Petitioner. Hence, the stand taken in the statement of objections is wholly untenable and contradictory to the admitted fact. 5. The 2nd Respondent has not made any attempt to get the injunction order vacated. No document is produced to show that the Petitioner has been evicted under due process of law. The 2nd Respondent being a local body, is not expected to throw the Petitioner out of the land despite injunction order and without following the procedure contemplated in law. It has blatantly violated rule of law and the provisions of Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. As a result of which, the livelihood of the Petitioner has been deprived. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for damages as held by the Apex Court. However, this Court declines to grant the same as the Petitioner has not sought for the same. Hence, it is a fit case to grant relief to the Petitioner. 6. Writ Petition is allowed and the Petitioner, is permitted to continue his business in the same place until he is provided a suitable place in the nearby vicinity on such terms and conditions that would be imposed to o