ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the orders both dated 04.08.2015 impugned at Annexures-G and H to the petitions. 2. The petitioner claims that the petitioner-recreation Centre has been functioning in the property bearing No. 1-1-17 of Raichur and contends that the lease given to the petitioner is in perpetuity. The case of the petitioner is that the club was started by the Nizam Government for the benefit of recreation of citizens of Raichur and after independence, the Deputy Commissioner of Raichur was the Ex-Officio President of the club. In the year 1978, since it was indicated that the Deputy Commissioner due to the pressure of the office would be unable to devote time towards the activities of the club, fresh bylaws are stated to have been drafted and club was named as Raichur Recreation Centre and registered for the benefit of the Members. CL-4 licence was also obtained and in that view, a Bar and Restaurant was also being managed in the said premises. According to the petitioner, though activities of the petitioner-recreation club is being carried out in accordance with law, the first respondent without any cause whatsoever has issued the impugned orders to take over the possession of the premises and to jeopardize the functioning of the recreation Centre. It is in that view, the petitioner is before this Court in these petitions. 3. As evident from the orders impugned, which essentially is the contention on behalf of the respondents, the action has been initiated since according to the first respondent the building belonging to the administration is being unauthorizedly occupied by the petitioner's recreation Centre. That apart, the reason indicated is also that amalgamation of the Citizens Recreation Club with the Officers Club, Raichur has been done contrary to law as per the enquiry that is stated to have been conducted at the instance of the first respondent. 4. At the first instance, when the petitions were taken up for consideration before this Court in order to consider the interim prayer, the memos filed on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents were taken into consideration. The memo filed on behalf of the respondents indicated that the petitioner being illegal occupants have already been dispossessed, while the memo filed on behalf of the petitioner indicated that there was an attempt to take forcible possession. The memo filed on behalf of the respondents indicated that the petitioner being illegal occupants have already been dispossessed, while the memo filed on behalf of the petitioner indicated that there was an attempt to take forcible possession. In view of conflicting memos, this Court had directed the parties to maintain status-quo. Even at this stage since conflicting contentions are taken relating to possession, that aspect of the matter need not be adverted since ultimately what is required to be considered is with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the orders impugned and the consideration thereof in any event would indicate the entitlement of each of the parties relating to possession as well. 5. In that background, the very perusal of both the orders impugned dated 04.08.2015 at Annexures-G and H will disclose that the first respondent through Annexure-G has indicated that the building belongs to the administration and since the same is required and there is dearth of suitable building for administration purpose, the possession of the same is required. Through the order at Annexure-H, it is indicated that from the enquiry it is noticed that amalgamation of two clubs is contrary to Section 21 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') and as such, amalgamation cannot be accepted and Raichur Citizens Club cannot be permitted to continue in the said premises. 6. Insofar as the allegation that the amalgamation is not in accordance with law, though the impugned order refers to an enquiry said to have been conducted at the instance of the first respondent, the petitioner disputes that such enquiry has been held after notifying the managing committee of the club. Therefore, if such enquiry is to be held alleging that the activities of the club is being held contrary to bylaws of club/society including the issue relating to amalgamation, the appropriate proceeding by the competent authority is to be held as provided under Section 25 of the Act. In the said proceedings, the competent authority is required to examine as to whether amalgamation if any made is contrary to Section 21 of the Act or as to whether the same has been made as provided in law, more particularly, as contemplated under the bylaws of the Society/club. Such enquiry in any event has not been held. In the said proceedings, the competent authority is required to examine as to whether amalgamation if any made is contrary to Section 21 of the Act or as to whether the same has been made as provided in law, more particularly, as contemplated under the bylaws of the Society/club. Such enquiry in any event has not been held. But it would still be open for the authorities to initiate such proceedings under Section 25 of the Act and hold such enquiry if they still deem that such an enquiry is required to be held. The same is however to be held after providing opportunity to the managing committee of the petitioner's recreation club. Therefore, the conclusion reached through the order dated 04.08.2015 as at Annexure-H without following such procedure as contemplated in law to arrive at a conclusion that amalgamation is contrary to law would not be justified. 7. The next aspect of the matter is with regard to the validity of the order dated 04.08.2015 as at Annexure-G. The very content of the letter would disclose that the petitioner's society/club was in occupation of the premises in question as on the date when the order dated 04.08.2015 was passed since it is indicated therein that the building is required for the use of the administration as there is dearth of suitable building. In that light, a perusal of the petition papers, more particularly, bylaws, rules and regulations at Annexure-A would disclose that the address of the petitioners club indicated is the building bearing Municipal No. 1-1-17 Station Road, Raichur which in fact is the building in question. Even if the averments as made in the writ petition to indicate that the petitioner has been functioning in the premises even during the Nizam Government is not accepted for the present, as on the date when the club was registered and the bylaws were filed in the office of the Registrar of Societies, the address of the petitioner's society/club is shown in the very premises to which the first respondent has presently issued the order to take possession of the same. In the order impugned, the first respondent has indicated that the petitioner is unauthorizedly occupying the said premises. Such statement in the very order would disclose that petitioner was in occupation as on the said date when the order was passed notwithstanding the allegation that it is unauthorized one. In the order impugned, the first respondent has indicated that the petitioner is unauthorizedly occupying the said premises. Such statement in the very order would disclose that petitioner was in occupation as on the said date when the order was passed notwithstanding the allegation that it is unauthorized one. Though the learned Additional Government Advocate would contend that since the petitioner is contending that it is their building, there is disputed question and as such, the same cannot be decided in a writ petition, this Court is conscious of the said fact that the disputed question with regard to the ownership or the title of immovable property cannot be decided in a writ petition. 8. Even if that be the position, having noticed the manner in which the petitioner has been in occupation of the premises for over a period of time, even if the first respondent is to take action to evict the petitioner from the premises assuming the premises belongs to the administration, at best the petitioner can only be termed as 'unauthorized occupant' as defined under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974. Thereafter, the procedure as contemplated under the said Act is required to be followed and in the said proceedings, petitioner would have the right to putforth its contentions based upon which the competent authority is required to decide the question and thereafter if it is found that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the public premises, an appropriate action for eviction no doubt would follow. Without following the due process of law, the first respondent in any event could not have taken law in to his hands and by passing the order in the manner as has been done could not have sealed the premises. 9. Without following the due process of law, the first respondent in any event could not have taken law in to his hands and by passing the order in the manner as has been done could not have sealed the premises. 9. Having arrived at the said conclusion, even if the memos filed before this Court are taken into consideration and the observations as made by the order dated 25.08.2015 is kept in view, with regard to there being conflicting submissions with regard to actual possession, in view of the decision herein above to indicate that the orders impugned is passed in a highhanded manner, even if the possession has been taken pursuant to such unsustainable order, I am of the opinion an appropriate direction is required to be issued to the first respondent to put back the petitioner in possession and if still the premises is required, the first respondent may initiate an appropriate action as provided under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 in the manner as indicated above. 10. Since I have already indicated above that with regard to the question as to whether amalgamation as made is in accordance with law or contrary thereof and with regard to the eviction from the premises, the procedure as indicated above is required to be followed, the impugned orders dated 04.08.2015 at Annexures-G and H being not sustainable are accordingly quashed. A direction is issued to the respondents to put back the petitioner in possession if in fact physical possession has already been taken. If, on the other hand, the petitioner has continued to remain in possession, their possession shall not be disturbed until the procedure contemplated in law is taken, wherein all contentions of the parties are left open. In terms of the above, the petitions stand disposed of.