IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAXA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21*" DAY or ocrosea 2o1ofrx.
BE FORE :
THE HON'Bl..E MRJUSTICE MOHAN sHANrA1N'A:GojubA'Ro' 'E
wan PETITIQN Ng.§§46g.2g"Q gm _
AND W.P.NQs.1§717-751fiiflggfi "QE M-S ea' 94): "
Bggwggn :
I. Ganesha
S/o Pachappa
Aged about 35 years H
2. Jayamma
W/o Chin,n'ap"p_a*..,.I{--_ ' Q A'
Aged about 3-{2}'Yea'r5'
3. Rajebydran 'fig:
S/o Karixyappa '
Aged abou_t:O 40 years " .
.._4. C.h§:onba*Ko|arnida.i:VV_ _
_Aged?~a'bo'ut 45 yeafs
shit. o5a.aAa:agkshm;
'--w/so Raja'ppa
Aged _aboVuj1t 55 years
Gopaia
'S/o Subrarnanya
"Aged about 37 years
10
11.
12.
13.
_ 15.
Indrani
W/0 Ramanathan
Aged about 42 years
. Raja
S/o Rajumani
Aged about 40 years
. Peria Swamy
S/o Chinnappa
Aged about 50 years
. Arjunappa
S/o Mutha
Aged about 38 years
Smt. Muniyamma
W/o Muniswamy
Aged about 45 years
Sarasa '- _ .
W/o B. Varadaraju *
Aged abodt'A~44V ..ye«ars«
N. shwaja.
S/0 Mun-éswvamy V
Ajgedyabout 44 years
_
A 539.93-
'-'_Ayged."a.bou't»»'32 years
Kijhwari
D/~.o Ramesh
A. ,__Age'd about 35 years
Muniswamy
S/o Perumai
Aged about 48 years
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
_kg,24au
333 25.
3Lokéfia£h,
T' 310' raga ia h
'r-'_Aged.'a.bou";-39 years
Anjali
D/0 Muthyalappa
Aged about 30 years
Smt. Lakshmi
W/o Kanan
Aged about 40 years
jtayakumar
S/0 Ponniah
Aged about 36 years
Gopalappa
S/o Seetharamaiah
Aged about 43 years
Munirathna
D/0 Muniswamy __
Aged about 35 yea.r's'~~.__
Smt. Papamma
W/o i\Earashirr:a_murt'hy. _ if '
Aged agh5U'3f*'35v\§ear'«s:W...
Balab A .
S/0 Veniaatesh
Afgedyabout .34' 'years .3
ee--i'a'\/afhi
W/o 'Fferumal
A. ,__Age'd about 37 years
Venkatesh
S/o Arjuna
Aged about 42 years
. 27.
28.
29.
3o.
31.
32.
33.
34.
3.5.
7.36.
M. Paiani
S/o Sulavan
Vasantha
S/o Govindappa
Aged about 47 years
Doraiswamy
Age Major
Smt. Margatham
W/o Chinnatham bi
Aged about 45 years
Kanan
S/o Manikyam
Aged about 34 years. '-
Nata raj a_
S/o Sun'dVa.*a.rr1'a"?V'..__ " 3
Aged abo.ut»..3:D_yea'rs. .. ' V
Ye!'amm.a
W/d~.R39Ur'-a '
Aged about 535 y'e'ars"~.._ "
IS; 'Kr.Eshn.Vapp_a'
_ ._':g_S';'.'o ;_ Na ray a n a'sw.a.my
« _ 3 Ag e'dfAab4ou._t 4 1 yea rs
_
do/o !.\E.a'gfai.f'r
(:f:iria_poa
' 3. ,.S/o'~Veni<atesh
Aged about 45 years
All are residents of
Bhovi Colony Sium
Thyagarajanagar
Bangalore~56O 028.
(By Sri B. Srinivas, AdV.,)
And :
1.
State of Karnataka
By it's Secretary 1
Housing and Urban Development
Department, Bangalore-01,:
. The Deputy Commissioner
Bangalore District, Ba.ngalore--.~~--
. The Karnataka Slum Cal'ear'arice'm?
Board, Risaldhar Street_' V
Sheshasripurarn _' _
Bangalore-5560 "
Rep by itfs'"Corrimi'ssiVone_r'.=.._ »
. The Bra-hat'hi.Ba'r3igalo're it
Mahainaga%a<"E?.alik3eV
Bangalore V _' .
Rep by' its Com_m%sséQiier;«
. Smt; K_rishE1a.m'ma
\l\_i/":3 iYl__araVshEm"al«u.. .....
Age Major,
' No.23.,V6"'«viM'ain Road
3"' «Blvo'¢~lg," Tfiiyag a ra j a n a g a r
" Baragaloréj-SD60 028.
. Sriot. kasiyamma
.. Sincevdead by LRs.,
Mannaraswamy
Aged about 67 years
S/o late Arymuthu
..PetEtioners
7.
Smt. Manimata
Aged about 22 years
D/o Mannaraswamy
W/o Amawase
(D)
Both are residing at
No.16, 3"" Block
Thyagarajanagar
Baragaiore~560 028.
(Note : R6(a) & (b) ame.nde£I'._:_' "
G. Sundar
S/o Guruswamy
Age Major
No.26/27, 3'" Block _
Thyagarajan.ag.ar---. ,
Bangalore-H560 Q28. _ V
Smt. Paramé$'h'§~ar:i' '
W/o V'; M. -Rajmatifga-ndra'*~.
Age Major ' '
No.25A,_'6",'_ Main iioad_ "--..,: ' %
3" Block, Thyagar«ajja,_na.gar'
Ban'ga|roe--~,56DVQ;28;..,
. ,C:ajaIakshhm,i .....
V S:j'nd'a*:_am
Age, M.a}'o.r'vaw , ' ~
A , :\!-';}.,1 3, f'3.',"," Bfioék
'Thyagaraja nagar
3a.nga'{o:'-94560 O28.
Sarriundi
" _ "S/0 Kaiiappa
" Age Major
No.87, 3"' Biock
Thyagarajanagar
Bangaiore-S60 028.
11. Smt. Akeiandama
W/o K. Inaval
Age Major
No.28, 3"' Biock
Thyagarajanagar
Bangaiore-560 028.
12. Smt. Nagamma
W/o Chinappa
Age Major
No.38, 3"' Biock
Thyagarajanagar z --
BangaIore~--56O O28..._ ; ".«rRespondents
(By Sri S.B. Shahabur, Ag.a.y,_ for –R.1_ah”d. R33;
Sri T.G. Suresh,anad’—N. l¥flanohVar,..yAdVa_, f’or«R3;
Sri Vinayak B,’ iadxzfiy’ for M/sq Ashok Ha”r-‘cmahaiii
Associates for R4; ‘SrE’..__N.R.;}–Na§k;” A’dy.,V_for M/s. N.R. Naik and
Associates for.R5,:’jR6(a)antt3»t_'(b){R7and R9)
Tnesevmt ‘eét’s«tiofis«–yt§iréd filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the _ConstEt..utionV of Iocfia praying to quash the order dated
5.8.2<QO'8, passed by the R2, the Deputy Commissioner,
"V"«..BAan§£_a'::oreA ..y_Distr'E<:t–,- ——– «Bangalore in proceedings vide
Annexurde-;L:
aw’ ,
an
. These,,»v_WAr:Et”Petitions coming on for hearing this day, the
Cot-rtmadge’ foilowing :
QRDER
V. ]”Petitioners claiming to be the residents of Bhovi Colony
sitjm, Thyagarajanagar, Bangalore–28, have filed these writ
M
petitions questioning the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Bangalore, vide Annexure-‘ G’ dated
in proceedings No.i(SACR.22/1991-92.
2. According to the petit:io’ne–rs,,
residing in the said slum area over°’iast_(three’ d’ecade’s,”«.1;h’at_
the said area lacks basic ameniti_es._,and.’the con’ditio:n’s”‘tnerein” A
are unsanitary and consequengti-y, ~.tVhe”ar.ea in question is not
fit for habitation.
3. re:»rea_i”‘tha_t Deputy Commissioner,
Bangaiorepistrictgybiissued’V’Va.'(_’n.ot:i’f’ication dated 22″” Euiy 2008
on being’ question which is situated
within iimitsof ‘Ba.ngiia’i’ore«–.i:,C’orporation is a source of danger
area y’;o”t.he he’aith’,’1sa’fety and convenience and not fit for
(human habitat_i_on etc., deciared the same as a siurn area by
Aissu-ingi dated 22.7.2008 under Section 3(1) of
_ Karnataira Sium Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The
,.’_’rioti’iication was questioned by eight persons, inciuding
“ceirtairi of the petitioners before this Court, in Writ Petition
1/”
I
__g_
i\ios.1542–44/94 8: connected matters. The said writ
petitions came to be dismissed by the order dated 18th
August 1998. The order passed in the writ petitions came to
be confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court
Appeal Nos.S908–5915/1998 on 28.8.1999. Th,;.:’s,’itt,’_is.i%_
that the deciaration of the area in question~vais._”E~.,s’i–ii:rri. area
under Section 3(1) of the Act has attained
4. Subsequentiy, a notifi’cation”caVrne
the office of the Deputy C:_o4:r’rs:1:_1is.sioner,«-.f_:l3an§aiore on
11.11.1996 bearing No.’K§3’ACii/29.2/T9′:-599″‘declaring the area
in question “cieara.nc’e’ (fiuasias tfiaaasoed §cSt3)
under seam The said notification was
questioned c’erta’inA’0fV’t’he persons, inciuding some of the
“”‘*’peétit’io’ne.;-is in,.these””wr’i’t petitions, before this Court in Writ
“‘*i?f?.eVtit.ion1::i§.os».4338’99-33903/96 & connected matters. Those
writ ..petiti.on_s:-.,c’ame to be allowed on 3″‘ August 1999 and the
93*»-‘«4___”matterswere remitted to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh
,V”r.onsid,eration, inasmuch as, petitioners therein were not
_g_i__\3en adequate opportunity of being heard. The order of
}’_/”é
-10-
remand passed by the learned Single Judge in the
aforementioned writ petitions was questioned by theppstate of
Karnataka before the Division Bench of this Coiurttl..’b_y’._:fi’ling.
Writ Appeal No.6315/99 and connected matt-e,.A4rjs~..l–T:he
appeals were also dismissed by anfivorder.rJa’ted4.y.4f?”‘February
zooo. Thus, the order p’aS__Sed 3’°’sit;’:gd.«__1’tg?:ti’;1999i”.
remanding the matter to the to re-
consider the matter underii-S_etftio;nA viias upheld.
Thereafter, the an order on
3.12.2002 in question as a
slum cle’ajran.ce*i.’.j’expat; vtgorder also came to be
questiohed__ byucertain of the petitioners in
Writ Petiltionl Nos’.::sépos’42s’8is/04. After hearing, the said
writpeizitionsl were allowed on 315* August 2005 and the
rnattler “again remitted back to the Deputy
Corn_mis’sio’«nea’sx.for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the
_ impu’gne_d’or’der is passed as per Annexure-‘G’ dated 5″‘
_Atigust ‘2d08 by the Deputy Commissioner hoiding that the
_’ area in question is not a ‘slum area’.
24
-11-
S. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the Deputy Commissioner cannot ignoreythe
orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition;”””f\i’o;s.’_1:54.2..A
44/1994 and connected matters and _in–…’4WriVt’A–C.::Appeai.,,C4″‘
Nos.5908–5915/98. As aforemenizioned.fith-is’:4.Court’-inthe
aforementioned matters has conf__irmeci.th’e notificatiiéon ijs’_;sued”i.
by the Deputy Commissioner SectVi’on’._V3′(vi) the Act.
What was under co_n:side?_ratVio.n:~..__=befo_re Deputy
Commissioner after validity of the
notification the Act. Thus,
according’ to,’ counsei, the Deputy
in conciuding that the area in
question ‘isnnot ‘fit Vto,”b_e’*«-sdeciared as sium area. In other
V words, ieagrneid “c.o_u’n’sei’for the petitioners submit that by the
order, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the
S’_ec’ti0n 3(1) of the Act afresh ignoring the
A by _ earlier o:f’d’ers”of this Court, which is illegai and arbitrary.
T””~«The writ petitions are opposed by Sri N.R.Naii<, iearned
counsel appearing on behaif of the contesting respondents.
i/3
11;)",
He submits that the impugned order is in effect an order
passed only under Section 11 (1) of the Act and not under
Section 3(1) of the Act. He draws the attention of the Court
that the Deputy Commissioner on getting spot inspection
done by the jurisdictional authorities, has C0nClude.('Ifi,'§l*i§it",tlii'3,
is not a fit case to declare the area as slum .c_léa,ra'nf_cel'area-4,_
inasmuch as, the area in
consequently is fit for habitation' 1 A if . . A if
6. Thus, the on|Y Cluestio’ni’i’t:hatneeds. :.if3eCV.’:ci,ecVided in
these writ petitions is asto..whether’:’thedmpugned”order vide
Annexure?””G~*,.V.,:Ci:atedfi-:”St”-.V;tu’gus’t””2i508 is an order passed
under se’cti¢f; 3 (ifofhgolr under Section 11(1) of the
Act. It is notd’ispu.ted–,_:by”‘l’learned advocates appearing on
“‘eiAthe:if5sid»e,:th,,at the ‘o–:<d–e'r in question is passed under Section
Deputy Commissioner could not have
passedhithetoylrderir under Section 3(1) of the Act, inasmuch as,
not~ifi"c';ation issued under Section 3(1) of the Act is
confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.1542–
& connected matters as well as in Writ Appeal
W
-13-
i\los.5908-5915/98, disposed of 18.8.1998 and 28.5.1999
respectively. On going through the impugned order, it is
clear that the Deputy Commissioner has discussed the case
under Section 11 (1) of the Act and not under Sectionw,’,:°$(.1) of
the Act. However, in the concluding portion of
Deputy Commissioner has erroneously used_th’e’—wor_d~ ‘9.’6.a7s9a3_,
§:5¢z% i.e., “slum area” instead of the
spas ” i.e., “slum clearance a*=ea..’f. The yvrong’,:’wAoi’vdi,ng..3used.f
by the Deputy Commissioner VAh.as,”created.confusion in the
minds of the parties. ThE1s,,thesiarnei”needsto be corrected.
Having E~e’g”,~§rd, ‘tota.l{fy of’;”tlh’eV’v4facts and circumstances,
this Court, isof that the order impuged is
passed _unde9r”~Secti,o[n AA1′–.1i(‘1=)”9V of the Act and consequently the
Cyommissioneiri-~i1’as held that this is not a fit case to
“d_ecfa.re..ti~1_e”are_afin question as slum clearance area. The
word,__’4″”‘8.rag5,$5v’t:’l_@c5c8 ” used by the Deputy Commissioner
.”*~.__’s’»hould ” read as “fiuavéas sflaaiaatoa’ §,c3¢z%”. As
..af~ore~m’entioned, the learned advocates appearing on behalf
V’
” 1′ 5 T’
– 14 –
of the parties agree with the said proposition. Accordingly,
the foliowing order is made :
The order vide Annexure-‘ 6′ dated 5.8.2008 passed by
the 2″” respondent is not interfered with. Howeve’r’;”».it is
made ciear that the said order is passed under
of the Act. The word “3.J3″u’333 gas;-3″ used,by~i.tVhéjoepiutt%,aAV1″g_
Commissioner shali be read as Etis
further made clear that the irn_pugVnedA’oride.r_ redad.”
as the one declaring that the apreafir} ‘q_LV1estio”n.isA fit to be
deciared as sium cieararicegareaf§jnder.,’jSection 11 (1) of the
Act.
With.__”these._i’o’bse’i*\r’ations, the writ petitions are
dispqsed. of: ‘-1
Sd/-5
Iudge