1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF JUNE 2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI W.P.NOS.23662-23793 OF 2014 [GM-SLUM] C/W WP NO.24073/2014 AND WP NOS.25418-25535/2014, WP NOS.24075-24117/2014, 22843-22891/2014, 22184-22191/2014, 25591-25646/2014, 25590/2014 AND 25674-791/2014 W.P.NOS.23662-23793/2014 BETWEEN 1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O SHRI V MUNIRAJ, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, HOUSE NO.151, 2. SMT. SUBBALAKSHMI W/O SHRI BALU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS HOUSE NO.152, 3. SMT. OBALAMMA W/O SHRI VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS HOUSE NO.155, 4. SMT. RAMALAKSHMI W/O SHRI OBALESH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HOUSE NO.158, 5. SMT. OBALAMMA W/O SHRI ANTHONY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, HOUSE NO.269, 6. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O SHRI RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE INTIMATION LETTERS ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND R-3 TO THE PETITIONERS PLACED VIDE ANNEXURE - C1 TO C90 AND ALL SUBSEQUENT AND CONSEQUENT ACTIONS THERETO AND ETC.
16
WP NO.24073/2014
AND WP NOS.25418-535/2014
BETWEEN
1. SMT MAADAMMA W/O LATE HONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.410,
2. SMT. SAVITHARAMMA, W/O RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 30, R/AT NO.127
3. SMT. NAGARATNA W/O PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO.517
4. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O APPAJI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.331,
5. SMT. KANNAMMA W/O LATE DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.54,
6. SMT. ANUSUYA W/O H.M. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.307,
7. SMT. RATNA W/O YESU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.389,
8. SMT. ALAMELU, W/O MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
17
R/AT NO.319,
9. SMT. LAKSHMI BAI W/O GOVINDANAIK, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.412,
10. SMT. VALLI W/O MANIKYAM AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.30 YEARS,
11. SMT. SUNITHA W/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.251,
12. SMT. VIJAYAMMA W/O DYAMNNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.232,
13. SMT. SHIVAKUMARI D/O LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.32,
14. SMT. YASHODHADEVI W/O KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.403,
15. SRI. RAMACHANDRANAIK S/O NANKINAIK, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.294,
16. SRI. CHINNAPPA S/O MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.227,
17. SMT. BHADHARAMMA W/O RAMU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
18
R/AT NO.212,
18. SMT. SELVI W/O KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.386,
19. SMT. SHAHINA W/O KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.489,
20. SMT. NANDINI W/O NAGARAJ S,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.126,
21. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.537,
22. SMT. NIRMALAMMA W/O GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.28,
23. SMT. BHAVYA W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.379,
24. SMT. BHAVANI P.B. W/O SHRI RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NO.535,
25. SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O SHEKAR. M, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NO.67,
26. SRI. ANAND KUMAR S/O HALLI MUTTU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
19
R/AT NO.150,(OLD HOUSE 107)
27. SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI W/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.362,(OLD HOUSE 28,187)
28. SMT. MAALA .V W/O RAMESH.N AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.511,
29. SMT. MANJULA W/O THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.347,
30. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.59,
31. SMT. ADAMMA W/O NIDAMADAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.177,
32. SMT. RANI D/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.
33. SMT. V. VARALLAKSHMI W/O G. NARASIMHA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.100,
34. SMT. KAVITHAMMA W/O BAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO.503,
35. SMT. GEETHA W/O GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
20
R/AT NO.331,
36. SMT. D. N. BHAGYAMMA W/O G.N. MURULIKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT
37. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO. 59, (NEW HOUSE NO.63)
38. SRI. BALAMURUGAN S/O DEVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO. 304, (OLD HOUSE NO.306)
39. SRI. SUBBAIAH S/O GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 323,
40. SMT. VELANGANI W/O BALU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO. 220,
41. SMT. TAYAMMA W/O JAVARAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. 87, (OLD HOUSE NO.182)
42. SMT. SHILPA W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 70, (OLD HOUSE NO.566)
43. SMT. LAKSMINARASAMMA W/O NARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 64, (OLD HOUSE NO.287)
44. SMT. SELVI W/O ANAND, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
21
R/AT NO. 302,
45. SMT. RAMYA W/O VELU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.69,
46. SMT. NETRA W/O BHARATH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT NO.91,
47. SMT. JANAKIDEVI W/O LATE UDAY KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.308,
48. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.84,
49. SMT. ANJALI W/O SANDILMURUGAN, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.537,
50. SMT. SOUNDARYA W/O SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT ,
51. SMT. PARVATHI W/O GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT NO.78,
52. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT
53. SMT. SUMATI W/O GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
22
R/AT NO.440,
54. SRI. U. NARASIMHAMURTHY. S/O NARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.29,
55. SMT. ANNAPURNA D/O JOGIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.85,
56. SMT.NAGAMMA
W/O SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.287,
57. SRI. RAVICHANDRAN S/O VEERAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.523,
58. RAMULU W/O MURULI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.322,
59. SMT. VENKATALAKSMAMMA W/O NARASIMHA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.72,
60. SRI. V. SAKI S/O VELLIKANNU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.74,
61. SMT. NAGARTHNA W/O MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.322,
23
62. SMT. KAVITHA W/O DHANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO.337,
63. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.323
64. SMT. TAMILARASI W/O RAJA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
65. SMT. KRISHNAVENI W/O SANDILKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.116,
66. SMT. SONIA W/O SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO.319,
67. SMT. K. KASTHURI W/O M.KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.30,
68. SMT. KAVITHA W/O SRINIVASH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.240,
69. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMMA, W/O NARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.28,
70. SMT. GURUMMA
W/O VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.73,
24
71. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O GANGADHARA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT
72. SMT. RATNAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.142,
73. SMT. PRABHAVATI W/O ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO.177,
74. SRI. HARISH S/O ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.582,
75. KUM. BHAGYALAKSHMI. P D/O PUTTARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT NO.83,
76. SRI. NARESH BABU S/O LATE ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.79,
77. SMT. HAMSAVENI W/O LATE BABU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.498,
78. SMT. MUTTURAJU S/O THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.212,
79. SMT. SUNITHA W/O SHAKTHIMURUGAN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.497,
25
80. SMT. VALLI W/O HARISH, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT
81. SMT. ESHWARAMMA W/O GANGADHARA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO. 303,
82. SMT. ANJALI W/O HARI PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 475, (OLD NO.189)
83. SMT. SUDHA W/O RANJITH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO. 189,
84. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE SHRI KALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 378,
85. SRI. RAVIKUMAR.N S/O NANJUNDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO. 153,
86. SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O NATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO. 108,
87. SMT. MUNNAMMA W/O SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 312,
88. SRI. SAVATHA S/O SAVATHA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/AT
26
89. SMT. SHANTHI W/O RAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.205,
90. SMT. BHAGYABAI W/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT
91. SMT. ALAMELU W/O PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT NO.40,
92. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O ADHINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.72
93. SMT. SELVI W/O SUBRAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.293,
94. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.238,
95. SMT. MALLAMMA W/O MILLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT
96. SMT. RANI, W/O PERMAL,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.65
97. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O MUTTALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.77
27
98. SMT. RAMANJAMMA W/O THIPPANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT
99. SMT. SARSVATHAMMA W/O GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT
100. SMT. ESHWARAMMA W/O GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT
101. SMT. ANNAPURNA W/O MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.297,
102. SMT. ANITHA W/O KEMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT
103. SMT. SUMALATHA W/O SARAVANAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.105,
104. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT
105. SMT. VENILA W/O UMESH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.348,
106. SMT. KRISHNAVENI W/O RAJA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.38,
28
107. SMT. ELLAMMA W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.88,
108. SRI. VELU W/O SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.49,
109. SMT. PACHIYAMMA W/O ELUMALAI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT
110. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/AT NO. 457,
111. SMT. DAVID S/O ANTHONY,,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO. 139,
112. SMT. SAROJAMMA D/O VENKATACHALAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO. 219,
113. SRI. KUMAR S/O NANENAIK, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO. 256,
114. SRI. BALARAJ NAIK S/O HANUMANAIK,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO. 553,
115. SRI. A. VENKATARAMAIAH S/O SANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO. 320,
29
116. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O ADEPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO. 444,
117. SRI. GOLLARAKRISHNAPPA S/O THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO. 210,
118. SMT. MAHESHWARI W/O R.VELUMURUGAN, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT NO. 306,
119. SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O KASHI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO. 241,
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO NO.119 ALL ARE R/AT JAI BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR SLUM, NIMHANS AUDITORIUM OLD PUMP HOUSE,
JAYANAGAR, I BLOCK, BANGALORE-560011. ... PETITIONERS
(BY:SRI CLIFTON D ROZARIO, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. [
2. KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
1. SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O SHRI NARAYANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS HOUSE NO. 8,
2. SMT. PADMA W/O SHRI ANJANAPPA
36
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS HOUSE NO. 14,
3. SMT. SUGUNAMMA W/O LATE SHRI VENKATESH MOTHER OF SHRI BABU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS HOUSE NO.15,
4. SMT. MANGAMMA W/O SHRI GANESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS HOUSE NO.17,
5. SMT SUSHILA W/O SHRI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS HOUSE NO.26,
6. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE SHRI HANUMANTHARAYUDU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS HOUSE NO.31,
7. SMT. RAMANJANAMMA W/O SHRI KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS HOUSE NO.33,
8. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O SHRI KADARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
HOUSE NO.35,
9. SMT. LATHA W/O SHRI GOPAL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS HOUSE NO.36,
10. SMT. KUMARI W/O SHRI RAJU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS HOUSE NO.37,
11. SMT. TULASIAMMA W/O SHRI RAMAPPA
37
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS HOUSE NO.52,
12. SMT. NAGARATNAMMA W/O SHRI KADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS HOUSE NO.62,
13. SMT. MUNIRATNA W/O LATE SHRI RAMANJEE
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS HOUSE NO.69,
14. SMT. GANAGAMMA W/O SHRI GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS HOUSE NO.78,
15. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O SHRI PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
HOUSE NO.82,
16. SMT. LALITHA W/O SHRI NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS HOUSE NO.91,
17. SMT. SOWBAGHYA W/O SHRI NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS HOUSE NO.97,
18. SMT. SUDHA W/O SHRI KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS HOUSE NO.136,
19. SMT.YESHASWINI W/O SHRI CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.113,
20. SHRI MANJUNATH S/O SMT.GOWRAMA AND SHRI OBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 154,
38
21. SHRI.PACHAPPA S/O LAE SHRI SUBBARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 120,
22. SHRI.MOHAN KUMAR S/O SHRI GOVINDAPPA AGED 40 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 215,
23. SMT.HEMAVATHI W/O SHRI PANCHAKSHARI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 218,
24. SMT.SHOBHA W/O SHRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 219,
25. SMT.ROOPA
W/O SHRI RAMAANJI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 225,
26. SMT.MARIYAMMA W/O SHRI GANESH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 216,
27. MANIKYAMMA W/O HANUMANTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 278,
28. SMT.MADAMMA W/O SHRI MADESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 299,
29. SMT.LAKSHMI W/O SHRI MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
HOUSE NO. 310,
30. SMT.PONIYAMMA SHRI.MURUGESH
39
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 313,
31. SMT.SARITHA W/O SHRI NAGESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 356,
32. SMT.DEVI W/O SHRI VEERASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 359,
33. SMT.PALANIYAMMA W/O SHRI SAMPATH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 361,
34. SMT.SUBAMMA W/O SHRI NARASAPP AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
HOUSE NO. 361,
35. SMT.ANITHA W/O SHRI RAJU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 362,
36. SMT.NARASAMMA W/O SHRI OBALESH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 481,
37. SMT.LAKSHMIDEVI W/O SHRI GANGADHARA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 478,
38. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O SHRI CHENAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
HOUSE NO. 495,
39. SMT.NANDHINI W/O SHRI RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 509,
40
40. SMT.NAGAMANI W/O SHRI NARASHIMAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 501,
41. SMT. MARY D/O SMT POOSAMANI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS HOUSE NO.300,
42. SMT. ALUMELAMMA W/O SRI. SUBBAREDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS HOUSE NO.514
43. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O SRI. KUMAR @ RAJA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS HOUSE NO.559
44. SMT. MANJULA
W/O SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS HOUSE NO.558
45. SMT. AMMULU @ AMUDHA W/O SRI. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS HOUSE NO.389
46. SMT. GANGARATNAMMA W/O SHRI ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS HOUSE NO.63
47. SHRI RAMESH S/O SHRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS HOUSE NO.525
48. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O SHRI SUBRAYADU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
HOUSE NO.203
49. SMT. BUDHAMMA W/O SHRI NARASHIMAPPA
41
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS HOUSE NO.65
PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 49 ARE R/AT, JAI BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR SLUM NIMHANS AUDITORIUM OLD PUMP HOUSE JAYANAGAR, I BLOCK, BANGALORE – 560 0011. ... PETITIONERS
(BY:SRI CLIFTON D ROZARIO, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
2. KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER NO.55, ABHAYA COMPLEX, RISALDAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560020
S/O LATE NARAYANA BHAT NO.399, J.P.ROAD, GIRINAGAR
BANGALORE – 560 085 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY:SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGA FOR R1; SRI M P SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
SRI PUTHIGE R.RAMESH AND LAKSHMI S.HOLLA, ADVOCATES FOR R4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
42
THE INTIMATION LETTERS DATED 24.4.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND R-3 TO THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURES -C1 TO C30 AND ALL SUBSEQUENT AND CONSEQUENT ACTIONS THERETO.
WP NOS.22184-191/2014
BETWEEN 1. SMT. USHA RANI
W/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, HOUSE NO.255,
2. SMT. PADMA
W/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.253
3. SMT. PUSHPA W/O MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, HOUSE NO.254,
4. SMT. JAYA LAKSHMI
W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.252, 5. SMT. NEELAMMA
W/O OBLESHA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HOUSE NO.268,
6. SMT. SHARADAMMA
W/O VENKATACHALA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.95,
7. SMT. PRIYA W/O SHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, HOUSE NO.03,
(BY:SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI M P SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI PUTHIGE R.RAMESH AND
SMT.LAKSHMI S.HOLLA, ADVOCATES FOR R4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION DATED 24.4.2014 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER 2ND SUB DIVISION OF KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD THE R-3 HEREIN VIDE ANN-A1, A2, A3, A4, A5,
A6, A7, A8 RESPECTIVELY.
WP NOS.25591-25646/2014 BETWEEN
44
1. SMT SUNDARAMMA
W/O KAVERAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, HOUSE NO.183
2. SMT.MAMATHA
W/O SUNIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.395 3. SMT.CHENGAMMA
W/O VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HOUSE NO.320
4. SRI.SHIVA KUMAR
S/O LATE MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.167
5. SMT.LATHA W/O SHIVA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, HOUSE NO.444
6. SMT.JAMUNA
W/O BABU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.104
7. SMT.JAYAMMA W/O B.P.MANUMATHA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HOUSE NO.107
8. SRI.SURESHA
S/O KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.99
9. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HOUSE NO.96
10. SMT.LAKSHMI DEVI
W/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
45
HOUSE NO.355 11. SMT.SVITHRAMMA
W/O DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, HOUSE NO.543
12. SMT.LATA W/O MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, HOUSE NO.209
13. SMT.KEMPAMMA
D/O LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HOUSE NO.201
14. SMT.LAKSHMI W/O S.VELAN,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, HOUSE NO.163
15. SMT.SUSHILAMMA
W/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, HOUSE NO.156
16. SMT.GOWRAMMA
W/O JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.192 17. SMT.MAHALAKSHMI
W/O SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, HOUSE NO.193
18. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.118 19. SMT.MANJULA
W/O VELU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HOUSE NO.211
20. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA
46
W/O NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HOUSE NO.204
21. SMT.JESSI
W/O KAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.159
22. SMT.VARALAKSHMI W/O MUNIRAJ, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, HOUSE NO.145
23. SMT.AMMU
W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.275
24. SMT.JYOTHI W/O SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, HOUSE NO.139
25. SMT.MAYAMMA
D/O BHUMIKA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HOUSE NO.468
26. SMT.SHAMALA W/O PARTHA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, HOUSE NO.392
27. SRI.PRASAD
S/O VENGAMMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HOUSE NO.262
28. SMT.RATNAKUMARI W/O KONDALA RAO
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HOUSE NO.298
29. SMT.MANJULA
W/O RADHA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, HOUSE NO.243
47
30. SMT.ANKAMMA W/O DURGAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, HOUSE NO.249
31. SMT.JAMUNA
W/O SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, HOUSE NO.373
32. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA
W/O JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUSE NO.196
33. SMT.ANITHA
W/O CHINNA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HOUSE NO.469
34. SMT.LALITHA
W/O BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, HOUSE NO.273
35. SMT.SATYA
W/O SHIVAM, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, HOUSE NO.374
36. SMT.KUMUDHA
W/O LATE JAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, HOUSE NO.1
37. SMT.RADHAMMA
W/O GUNASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, HOUSE NO.463
38. SMT.PREMA
W/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, HOUSE NO.146
39. SMT.SHOBHA.B.C
W/O B.P.PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, HOUSE NO.325
48
40. SMT.ANJULAMMA
W/O GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HOUSE NO.89
41. SRI.CHANDRAMMA
W/O LATE VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.129 42. SMT.SHEELA
W/O PUTTA RAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, HOUSE NO.124
43. SMT.CHAMUNDI
W/O PANNEER AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.165
44. SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HOUSE NO.226
45. SMT.KENGAMMA
W/O MANOHARA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.190
46. SMT.SHIVAMMA W/O RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HOUSE NO.411
47. SMT.NAGU BAI
W/O SHAMA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.235
48. SMT.RATNAMMA W/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HOUSE NO.276
49. SMT.SUNANDA
W/O SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
49
HOUSE NO.185 50. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, HOUSE NO.2
51. SMT.BALAMMA W/O RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, HOUSE NO.161
52. SMT.NAGAMMA
W/O GANESHA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, HOUSE NO.213
53. SMT.USHA W/O RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, HOUSE NO.330
54. SMT.PALANIYAMMA
W/O SHEKAR.P, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HOUSE NO.121
55. SMT.JULI
W/O SUBRAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HOUSE NO.351
56. SMT.RADHA
W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, HOUSE NO.170
PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 56 ALL ARE R/AT JAIBHUVANESHWARI NAGAR SLUM AREA,
S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.25,
2. SMT.HANUMANTHRAYA
S/O ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.433,
3. SMT.MUTTHU S/O ARJUNAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.111,
51
4. SMT.NAGARATHNA W/O RAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.221,
5. SMT.GANGAMMA
W/O BODASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.365,
6. SMT.PUSHPAVATHI
W/O NATRAJ AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.364,
7. SMT. LAKSHMI
W/O VENKATARAM
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.233,
8. SMT.CHINNAPAPA
W/O KOLANJI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.7,
9. SMT.PADMA
W/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.112,
10. SMT.AMBUJA
W/O VENU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.277,
11. SMT.M.BHAGYAMMA
W/O NAGRAJ AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.562,
12. SMT.SHANTHI
W/O SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.531,
13. SMT.SANDHYA
W/O BABU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.61,
52
14. SMT.NAGRAJ
S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.353,
15. SMT.NIRMALA
W/O RAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.289, 16. SMT.MAHADEVAMMA
W/O MAARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.229,
17. SMT. HANUMAKKA
W/O HANUMANTHARAYA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.434,
18. SMT. MANJULA W/O NANJESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.445,
19. SMT.CHENNAMMA
W/O MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.202,
20. SMT.RANGAMMA W/O RAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.271,
21. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.230,
22. SMT.RAMAKKA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.546,
23. SMT. ANNAMMA
W/O GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
53
RESIDING AT NO.390, 24. SMT.VIJAYA
W/O KANAPPA,5 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.388,
25. SMT.VINUTHA W/O VIJAYKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.184,
26. SMT.N.LAKSHMI DEVI
W/O AMARA NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.265,
27. SMT.SITABAI W/O SEVANAYAK
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.296,
28. SMT.PACHHIAMMA
W/O CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.149,
29. SMT.HYULIGAMMA
W/O NARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.316,
30. SHRI B.JAGADESSH
S/O SUGURAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.354,
31. SMT.BHARATI
W/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.198,
32. SMT.SHAMLA
W/O SRI RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.290,
33. SMT. MUNAMMA
W/O SRINIVASA
54
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.312,
34. SMT.RATHNAMMA
W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.109,
35. SMT.SANNATAYAMMA
W/O RAMU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.317,
36. SMT.MEENA
W/O SELVARAJ AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.199,
37. SMT.THIMMAKA
W/O LATE MARIAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.90, 38. SMT.PUTTAMMA
W/O LAGE SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.87,
39. SMT.GODAVARI
W/O GOVINDRAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.119, 40. SMT.SANGEETHA
W/O PERUMALAI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.197,
41. SHRI.RAJA
S/O RAVI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.552, 42. SMT.GOVINDAMMA
W/O PUVARSU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.329,
43. SMT.MUNIAMMA
55
W/O RAVI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.206,
44. SMT. SUGANTHI
W/O KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.130,
45. SMT.MEENAKSHI W/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.387,
46. SMT.LAKSHMI
W/O TANGAVELU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.327,
47. SMT.ADILAKSHMI W/O N.KESHAVALU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.132,
48. SMT.INDRA
W/O NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.67,
49. SMT.CHAMUNDI W/O PANNIR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.165,
50. SMT.GANGARATNAMMA
W/O ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.283,
51. SMT.RUKMINI W/O SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.167,
52. SMT.BASANTI
W/O RAJA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.47,
56
53. SHRI GOPI S/O SASHI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 414,
54. SMT.PEDDAKKA
W/O SUBBARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 510,
55. SMT.SHANTAMMA
W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 168,
56. SMT.SHARADHAMMA
W/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 138,
57. SMT.GAURI
W/O SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 484,
58. SMT.RATNAMMA
W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 169,
59. SMT.JAYAMMA
W/O LATE MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 171,
60. SMT.YASHODA
W/O NARESH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 405,
61. SMT.KUMARI
W/O JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 367,
62. SMT.YASODHA
W/O HARINATH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 106,
57
63. SMT.VANILLA
W/O MAHINDRA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 106,
64. SMT.MUTHYALAMMA
W/O OBALAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 23, 65. SHIR KUMAR
S/O SHUBAL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 328,
66. SHRI JAYARAM
W/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 244,
67. SMT.PADMA W/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 105,
68. SMT.DEEPA
W/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 70,
69. SHRI LAVAKUMAR S/O MUNIKUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 153,
70. SMT.ROOPA
W/O RAVI AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 340,
71. SHRI HANUMAPPA S/O DODDAOBALAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 496,
72. SMT.ADILAKSHMAMMA
W/O CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
58
RESIDING AT NO 513, 73. SHRI MADHU P.B.
S/O PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 74,
74. SHRI B.R.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 231,
75. SHRI.SHIVANNA
S/O VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 460,
76. SHRI.SUDHA W/O RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 521,
77. SHRI SHANTHA
W/O SWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 321,
78. SMT.ACHAMMA
W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 230, 79. SMT.RARTNAMMA
W/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 258,
80. SMT.SAILAJA
W/O SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 164, 81. SHRI.SHANKARA
S/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 551,
82. SHRI.SRIRAM GAUTAMI
59
S/O GANGANATH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 493,
83. SHRI.KUMAR
S/O SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.270,
84. SMT.SUVARNA W/O RAVI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.297,
85. SMT.NETRAVATHI
W/O MUTTURAJ AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.212,
86. SMT. NARASAMHA W/O THIMMARAJ
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.424,
87. SMT.GOVINDAMMA
W/O PALANI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.368,
88. SMT.RATNAMMA D/O GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.426,
89. SMT.MARY
W/O MUNIAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.181,
90. SHRI MOHAN G S/O GANESH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.246,
91. SHRI YASEEN
S/O ABDUL KADAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.371,
60
92. SMT.KRISHNAVENI W/O MAHALINGAM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.406,
93. SMT.JAYALAKSHMI
W/O RAJENDRA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.29,
94. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O SUBARRAYA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.203,
95. SMT.KUMUDHA
W/O LATE JAYKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.10,
96. SMT.KAMALA
W/O B.K.RAJ AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.175,
97. SMT.SUMA
W/O S.SHIVANA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.62,
98. SHRI MUNIPILLAI
S/O KOPPAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.110,
99. SMT.MINI
W/O ANAND AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.450,
100. SMT.BHAGYALAKSHMI
W/O SELVARAJ N AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.487,
101. SMT.SUBBALASHMI
W/O SIGAMANI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.362,
61
102. SMT.SHARADHA
W/O SANTOSH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.439,
103. SHRI JAMESH BABU
S/O G.YOBA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.125, 104. SHRI.NARASIMHA
S/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.214,
105. SMT.MARY
W/O NAGRAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.399,
106. SMT.MANJU W/O PALANI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.560,
107. SHRI M.LAVAKUMAR
S/O MUNIKUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.420,
108. SMT.ALAMELU W/O DEVRAJ AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.473,
109. SMT. MARY
W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.300,
110. SHRI.DEEPAK S/O PUNDRICK AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.291,
111. SHRI.RAVICHANDRA
S/O NARAYANSWAMY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
62
RESIDING AT NO.436, 112. T. GAYATRI
W/O LATE R.MUGAM AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.
113. SMT.JYOTHI RASHMI W/O MADHU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.
114. SMT.GOMATHI
W/O SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.314,
115. SHRI S.RAMESH S/O SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.555,
116. SHRI GEETHA
W/O SANTOSH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.250,
117. SHRI PRAKASH N
S/O NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.324,
118. SMT.MEENA
W/O SETHU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.218,
119. SHRI N.A.PALANI
S/O NAGRAJ
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.179,
PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 119 ARE R/AT JAI BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR SLUM, NIMHAS AUDITORIUM OLD PUMP HOUSE, JAYANAGAR, I BLOCK, BANGALORE – 560 011 ... PETITIONERS
(BY:SRI CLIFTON D ROZARIO, ADVOCATE)
63
AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001
2. KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER NO.55, ABHAYA COMPLEX, RISALDAR STREET, SESHADRIPUAM, BANGALORE-560020
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DIVISION NO.2, KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
RISALDAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM,
BANGALORE-560020 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY:SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI M P SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE INTIMATION LETTERS ISSUED BY THE R2 & R3 TO THE PETITIONERS DT.24.4.14, PLACED AS ANN-C1 TO C69 & ALL SUBSEQUENT & CONSEQUENT ACTIONS THERETO AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioners are questioning the intimation letters
(w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæ) issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer of
Karnataka Slum Development Board directing them to vacate
their homes/huts in Jai Bhuvaneshwarinagar slum area. They
are directed to occupy and shift to the houses constructed in
Kudlu Village for the purpose of rehabilitating them.
64
2. Sri Vivek S. Reddy, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.24075-24117/2014,
22184-22191/2014 and 25591-25646/2014 submits that the
premises constructed at Kudlu Village are in dilapidated
condition. They are unfit for human occupation. The buildings
in Kudlu village have developed the cracks, plasting is peeling
off, minimum quantity of cement is used and the external and
internal walls are very weak. The structural engineer has
given the report to the effect that it is not advisable to stay
there. He has also produced the photographs to support his
submission that the quality of construction is poor. The
buildings in Kudlu Village are so weak that it is not safe for
the petitioners to reside there.
3. Sri Vivek Reddy submits that the newspapers
have also been reporting that the quality of construction of
buildings in Kudlu Village is substandard. If the petitioners
are compelled to shift to such buildings, it would be violative
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to life,
enshrined in Article 21 means something more than mere
survival or animal existence. The right to life essentially
means the right to live with human dignity.
65
4. The learned counsel submits that the men folk
living in Jai Bhuvaneshwarinagar slum area are employed
gainfully in the adjoining localities. If they are forced to shift
to a distant locality, they would lose their source of livelihood.
He submits that the proposed shifting to Kudlu Village would
also affect the school-going children. The exercise of shifting
cannot be done after the commencement of academic year.
He submits that the abrupt shifting would only bring about a
dislocation in the lives of the slum-dwellers. It would lead to
a rise in the drop-out rate from the schools. He would
contend that the Kudlu Village buildings are not viable
alternative at all.
5. He submits that there is no immediacy or urgency
for shifting the petitioners. He submits that there is no
constraint of space for the T.B.Sanitorium Hospital. The
Director of the Hospital has his quarters spread over 2 acres.
In that 2 acres, hundreds of slum-dwellers can be
accommodated. There are no reasons whatsoever for
resorting to the militant and aggressive ways by the
authorities for forcibly evicting the petitioners at this stage.
6. He submits that the petitioners and/or their
forefathers have been living in the slum area in question for
66
the last 60 years. Some of them are not even put on notice.
Attempting to bulldoze the petitioners’ huts by the respondent
authorities is extremely arbitrary.
7. Sri Clifton D’ Rozario, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.23662-
23793/2014, 24073/2014 and 25418-25535/2014, 22843-
22891/2014, 25590/2014 and 25674-25791/2014 submits
that out of 490 families residing in the slum area in question,
only 237 families have received the intimation. He submits
that the 26 families have not received the notice, although
their names figure in the list of slum-dwellers prepared by the
Karnataka Slum Development Board.
8. He submits that the right to shelter is certainly
within the sweep of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Relying on the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of CHAMELI
SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER,
reported in (1996) 2 SCC 549, he would contend that the
protection of life guaranteed by Article 21 encompasses within
its ambit the right to shelter to enjoy the meaningful right to
life. The right to residence and settlement is a fundamental
right under Article 19(1)(e) and it is a facet of inseparable
meaningful right to life under Article 21. The right to shelter
67
includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure,
clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and
water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like
roads, etc. so as to have an easy access to one’s daily
avocation.
9. The learned counsel also brings to my notice the
Apex Court’s judgment in the case of B.D.SHARMA v. UNION
OF INDIA AND OTHERS, reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 93
for advancing his submission that the rehabilitation process
should be completed atleast six months before the area is
likely to be submerged. He sought to draw support from the
Apex Court’s judgment in the case of N.D.JAYAL AND ANR. v.
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS, reported in (2004) 9
SCC 362. Paragraph No.59 of the said decision read out by
him is as follows:-
“59. Rehabilitation is not only about providing
just food, clothes or shelter. It is also about
extending support to rebuild livelihood by ensuring
necessary amenities of life. Rehabilitation of the
oustees is a logical corollary of Article 21. The oustees
should be in a better position to lead a decent life and
earn livelihood in the rehabilitated locations. Thus
observed this Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan's
case (supra). The overarching projected benefits from
the dam should not be counted as an alibi to deprive
68
the fundamental rights of oustees. They should be
rehabilitated as soon as they are uprooted. And none
of them should be allowed to wait for rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation should take place before six months of
submergence. Such a time limit was fixed by this
Court in B D Sharma v. Union of India, and this was
reiterated in Narmada. This prior rehabilitation will
create a sense of confidence among the oustees and
they will be in better position to start their life by
acclimatizing themselves with the new environment.”
10. The learned counsel relies on this Court’s decision
in the case of SMT.SATYAVVA v. HUBLI DHARWAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY ITS COMMISSIONER, reported
in ILR 2011 KAR 2004, wherein the need for taking the
steps for rehabilitating the slum-dwellers is emphasized while
recognizing the need for the planned development of a city. In
the said case, this Court has also underlined the need for a
participatory or an inclusive approach. No purpose would be
served by summarily evicting the slum-dwellers. They are to
be rehabilitated. The concerned authority was directed to
identify the lands for the rehabilitation of the slum-dwellers
after involving the elected representatives of the people also.
11. The learned counsel submits that the
rehabilitation of the petitioners has to take place in the letter
and spirit of the National Rehabilitation and Re-settlement
69
Policy, 2007. Paragraph No.4.3.3 of Chapter IV of the said
policy document prescribes a public hearing for discussing the
Social Impact Assessment Report. He submits that the
rehabilitation and re-settlement plan has to be prepared and
implemented as per the procedure contained in Chapter VI of
the said policy document.
12. Sri Rozario also relies on the Apex Court’s decision
in the case of THE GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE AND ORS. v.
J.V.BHAT, reported in (1975) 1 SCC 110 wherein the
rationale behind the need to hear the concerned party before
demolishing his building is stated as follows in paragraph
No.13:
“13. We must, therefore, examine the nature of
functions imposed by statute and the requirements
they are designed to meet in applying the tests stated
above. We think that, the duty to hear those whose
dwellings are to be condemned becomes imperative
before deciding to demolish their particular buildings
although we do not think that any quasi-judicial trial
was called for. All that was necessary was to I hear
objections, checked by spot inspections, where
needed, before taking a decision. This would have met
with the requirements of natural justice in such cases
where emergent action may sometimes be very
necessary. We may point out that, in cases of
demolition orders, pursuant to schemes framed under
the Housing Act in England, the duty to hear before
70
making them was held by the Court to be implied. The
earliest of these cases was Cooper v.The Board of
Works for Wandsworth District. These duties are now
imposed by statute (see Sections 16 and 20 of
Housing Act, 1957).”
13. The learned counsel also read out paragraph
No.15 from the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of
SCHEDULED CASTE AND WEAKER SECTION WELFARE
ASSOCIATION (REGD.) AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, reported in (1991) 2 SCC 604,
while making his submission on the need for adherence to the
rule of audi alteram partem. The said paragraph is extracted
hereinbelow.
“15. It is one of the fundamental rules of our
constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected
against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or
its officers. If there is power to decide and determine
to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is
implicit in the exercise of such power and the rule of
natural justice operates in areas not covered by any
law validly made. What particular rule of natural
justice should apply to a given case must depend to an
extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the
frame work of the law under which the enquiry is held
and the body of persons appointed for the purpose. It
is only where there is nothing in the statue to actually
prohibit the giving of an opportunity to be heard, but
on the other hand, the nature of the statutory duty
71
imposed itself necessarily implied an obligation to hear
before deciding, that the audi alteram partem rule
could be imported. Thus in applying the test, to the
provisions of the earlier Act, the Mysore Slum Areas
(Improvement and Clearnance) ACt, 1958, this Court
held in Government of Mysore & Ors. v. J.V. Bhat etc.,
[1975] 2 SCR 407 thus:
“There can be no two opinions about the need
to hear the affected persons before declaring an area
to be a slum area under Section 3 or an area as a
clearance area under Section 9 or before taking action
under Section 10. All these difficulties will be removed
if the affected persons are given an opportunity to be
heard in respect of the action proposed."
14. The learned counsel read out Section 11 of the
Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act,
1973 and contended that the area in question is declared as
‘slum area’; what remains is to be done is only its
development. Instead of improving the area, the authorities
are resorting to clear the area by evicting the slum-dwellers
forcibly.
15. The object for which the said Act is enacted is to
create a better accommodation and improved living conditions
for the slum-dwellers. In support of his submissions, he has
also relied on this Court’s decision in the case of BELLAM
72
THIMMAPPA ALIAS GUNTIGE THIMMAPPA AND ANR. v.
KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD AND ORS., reported in
2002 (1) KCCR 198.
16. The learned counsel submits that as many as 213
students residing in the slum area in question are studying in
different schools and colleges in the vicinity of their residence.
In this regard, he brings to my notice Annexure-P, which
contains the full particulars of the students so studying. That
the studies of these many children cannot be put in the
doldrums because of the abrupt shifting, is the anxiety of Sri
Rozario.
17. Sri Rozario has also relied on the Division Bench’s
judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of
MRS.RUTUPARNA MOHANTY, MANAGING TRUSTEE, MAA
GHAR GOUNDATION AND 43 ORS. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND
ORS., reported in 2010(II) ILR-CUT 633. The relevant
portions of paragraph Nos.17 and 18 are extracted
hereinbelow.
“17. ………. The CMC shall also take steps for
protection of child rights and prohibition of child labour
as envisaged in Section 503 of the Act which says that
the Corporation shall be an active partner in the
implementation of the International Convention on
73
Child Rights and shall ensure that every child has
access to a sufficient range of educational and
vocational training and shall discourage child labour
through the implementation of penalties and fines and
also keeping in view Article 21-A of the Constitution to
provide free education to the children up to High
School level and effective monitoring and evaluation of
the same is required. The second point is also
answered accordingly in favour of the
petitioners/slum-dwellers and their children.”
18. ……… Therefore, the State Government and
the CMC shall include the evictees from the aforesaid
slum as identified slum-dwellers for the purpose of
resettlement and rehabilitation.”
18. Prof.Ravivarma Kumar, the learned Advocate
General appearing for the State Government submits that the
steps are being taken for shifting the slum-dwellers from the
areas in question to the Kudlu Village in compliance with the
Division Bench’s judgment in the case of B.KRISHNA BHAT v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND ORS., reported in ILR
2010 KAR 949. The Division Bench, interalia, has issued the
following directions in the said case:-
“State Government should clear the slums,
wherever the slums have come up, as early as possible
by shifting and rehabilitating the slum-dwellers to any
74
other place. The State Government shall not
contemplate to have slum colony inside the hospital
premises. The State Government is directed to restrain
itself from establishing the slum colony inside the
hospital premises.”
19. It is in compliance with the afore-extracted
direction that the petitioners are being called upon to vacate
their places in Jaibhuvaneshwarinagar and shift to the
apartments in Kudlu Village, which are constructed for the
purpose of rehabilitating them.
20. He submits that the public interest litigant, Sri
B.Krishna Bhat has initiated the contempt proceedings in CCC
(Civil) Nos.2305-2328/2013. In the said contempt
proceedings, the Government has given an undertaking to
comply with the afore-directions within three months. The
State Government filed I.A.No.1/14 in C.C.C.(civil) Nos.2305-
2328/2013 seeking four more months time from 3.3.2014 for
complying with the order. The Division Bench, by its order,
dated 4.3.2014 extended the time for complying with the
directions till the end of May 2014.
21. The learned Advocate General submits that the
Division Bench’s judgment in B.Krishna Bhat’s case
75
(supra) has attained the finality. The petitioners have not
taken any steps either to seek the review of the order or to
challenge it before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As it is a
judgment in rem, it binds everyone, including the petitioners.
22. The learned Advocate General submits that as
many as 1056 apartments are constructed. Out of them, 544
are already allotted to the slum-dwellers and have already
been occupied by them. He submits that, as per the earlier
understanding, the slum-dwellers were required to pay
`20,000/- and get the ownership rights of the apartments.
Now they are not even required to pay `20,000/-, as the
contribution of `20,000/- for each slum-dweller family is being
met by the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike.
23. He submits that the photographs being produced
by the petitioners were taken one or two months ago. Much
water has flown since then. The buildings in Kudlu Village are
fully ready for occupation. The water supply and electricity
connections are also ensured. He submits that the distance
between the slum area in question and the Kudlu Village is
about 15 Kms. He submits that, as the Kudlu Village is also
close to the Electronic City, the residents of Kudlu Village
should have no difficulty in securing the employment. In a
76
pro-active spirit, he submits that, if this Court issues any
directions for further improvement of the facilities, the
Government would be anxious to give them.
24. The learned Advocate General submits that the 23
similarly placed persons had filed Writ Petition No.10541/2013
and 10635-638/2013 c/w Writ Petition Nos.12883-
12900/2013. This Court, by its order, dated 15.7.2013
disposed them off with the following order:-
“7. If that be the position, the prayer at
No.1 also would not arise for consideration inasmuch
as by the allotment letters at Annexures-A1 to A5,
the petitioners have been benefitted with the
allotment at Koodlu Village wherein the Slum
Clearance Board has constructed the house for them
and it would be in the interest of the petitioners to
occupy the said premises. At this juncture, it is not
in dispute that since the interim orders granted by
this Court had already been vacated and the
petitioners have also been evicted from the hospital
premises. Hence, Respondent No.2 in any event
shall ensure that the houses allotted to the
petitioners under the allotment letters at Annexures-
A1 to A5 are available for occupation and the
petitioners shall be put in possession of the said
houses within a time frame.
In terms of the above, the petitions stand
disposed of.”
77
25. He submits that the non-observance of the
principles of natural justice would be a good ground for the
interference of this Court, but only when the parties are in a
position to show that they have suffered the prejudice on
account of non-observing the principles of natural justice.
26. In the instant case, even assuming that the
petitioners are not given the show cause notice, it makes no
difference, because they can have no tenable resistance to
the impugned eviction intimations. They are being evicted
pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench. In support
of his submissions, he relies on the Apex Court’s judgment in
the case of S.L.KAPOOR v. JAGMOHAN AND OTHERS,
reported in (1980) 4 SCC 379. The relevant paragraphs of
the said decision are extracted hereinbelow:-
“17. Linked with this question is the question
whether the failure to observe natural justice does at
all matter if the observance of natural justice would
have made no difference, the admitted or indisputable
facts speaking for themselves. Where on the admitted
or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible
and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the
Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance
of natural justice, not because it approves the non
observance of natural justice but because Courts do
not issue futile writs. But it will be a pernicious
principle to apply in other situations where conclusions
78
are controversial, however, slightly, and penalties are
discretionary.
24. In our view the principles of natural justice
know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it
would have made any difference if natural justice had
been observed. The non-observance of natural justice
is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice
independently of proof of denial of natural justice is
unnecessary. It will comes from a person who has
denied justice that the person who has been denied
justice is not prejudiced. As we said earlier where on
the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion
is possible and under the law only one penalty is
permissible, the Court may not issue its writ to compel
the observance of natural justice, not because it is not
necessary to observe natural justice but because
Courts do not issue futile writs. We do not agree with
the contrary view taken by the Delhi High Court in the
judgment under appeal.
27. Sri M.P.Srikanth, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent–Karnataka Slum Development Board and
its officers submits that 20 clear days notice is given to the
petitioners to vacate and move to the new premises. He
submits that the serving of the notice itself was made very
difficult. When the officers of the said Board went to serve
the notice, some of the slum-dwellers refused to receive the
notice and created a volatile situation, as a result of which the
79
officials of the said Board had to take the assistance and
protection of the police. He submits that on the failure of
some of the slum-dwellers to receive the notice, the notices
came to be displayed in some conspicuous part of the locality.
28. Sri Srikanth submits that the Slum Development
Board has already taken up the issue with BWSSB for the
supply of water in tankers, should there be any shortfall in the
supply of water. He submits that the same is in addition to
the borewells and main water supply lines.
29. Sri Puttige R. Ramesh, the learned counsel
appearing for the impleading applicant (I.A.No.3/14 in
W.P.Nos.22843-22891/2014 and I.A.No.2/14 in
W.P.Nos.22184-22191/2014) submits that the impleading
applicant, Sri B.Krishna Bhat is a public spirited citizen. He
filed the public interest writ petition No.18702/1998 seeking
the directions to improve the working of Government
Hospitals in Bangalore. The Division Bench, by its order,
dated 13.11.2000 dismissed the writ petition. The said Sri
Krishna Bhat took up the matter to the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No.550/2002. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgment and remanded
the matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed its
80
considered view that the High Court would be justified in
issuing appropriate directions in the matter of maintaining the
hospitals. It also observed that the High Court is at liberty to
pass appropriate order with regard to the clearance of slums
in the hospital premises. It is on the remand of the matter
that the Division Bench, by its judgment, dated 25.9.2008
allowed the petition by issuing six necessary directions. One
such direction issued to the State Government was for
clearing the slums by shifting and rehabilitating the slum-
dwellers to any other place. The State Government was
specifically directed not to contemplate or establish the slum
colony inside the Government Hospital premises.
30. Sri Ramesh submits that even in the wake of clear
directions issued by the Division Bench, the Government and
the Slum Development Board were showing inaction in the
matter. Their inaction therefore drove the impleading
applicant to file CCC (Civil) Nos.2305-2328/2013. In the said
contempt proceedings, the Government undertook to have the
slums cleared by shifting the slum-dwellers to an alternative
place. At the Government’s instance, the time was extended
for complying with the directions issued by the Division
Bench.
81
31. The learned counsel submits that, as the whole
exercise of clearing the slum with the avowed objective of
improving the hygenic conditions in and around the hospital
premises is based on the initiative taken by the impleading
applicant, he is a proper and necessary party for the
adjudication of the issues, which may fall for consideration in
this case.
32. Without prejudice to this contention, Sri Ramesh
submits that the impleading applicant is atleast a ‘proper
party,’ if not a ‘necessary party.’ Relying on the Apex Court’s
judgment in the case of UDIT NARAIN SINGH MALPAHARIA
v. ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR AND
ANOTHER, reported in AIR 1963 SC 786, he submits that a
‘necessary party’ is one without whom no order can be made
effectively; a ‘proper party’ is one in whose absence an
effective order can be made, but whose presence is necessary
for a complete and final decision on the question involved in
the proceedings.
33. Sri Ramesh submits that in 1998, when the public
interest litigation was filed by the impleading applicant, there
were 168 families in the slum area in question. He submits
82
that approximately there were about 700 people belonging to
the said 168 families. He submits that, as the impugned
notices are issued by the respondent authorities in compliance
with the Division Bench’s judgment, the Single Judge’s
interference is not warranted. He submits that wide publicity
was indeed given to the measures taken to rehabilitate the
slum-dwellers. He submits that the subject has been hitting
the headlines in the newspapers. He further submits that the
print and electronic media were also giving wide coverage to
the ongoing moves. He would therefore contend that the
slum-dwellers have had the constructive or implied notice of
the proceedings in question.
34. The learned Advocate General has fairly indicated
the State Government’s no objection to the allowing of the
impleading applications.
35. In the course of rejoinder, Sri K.N.Subba Reddy,
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ
Petition Nos.24075-117/2014, 22184-191/14 and 25591-
25646/14 submits that the structures in Kudlu Village are so
very weak that they may collapse any moment. He submits
that there are about 1000 children residing with their elders in
the slum area in question. They are extremely poor. He
83
requests that the existing slum area may be retained and
developed instead of forcing the slum-dwellers to the
buildings in Kudlu Village, as there are no water supply and
electricity supply facilities.
36. Sri Clifton D’ Rozario, the learned counsel for the
petitioners in writ petition Nos.23662-23793/2014,
24073/2014 and 25418-25535/2014, 22843-22891/2014,
25590/2014 and 25674-25791/2014, in the course of his
rejoinder submits that there are no schools and colleges in the
vicinity of Kudlu Village. The school-going children have to
traverse the distance of 3½ Kms. He submits that there are
not enough public transportation facilities. There are only two
buses to and from Kudlu Village to the mainstream place –
one in the morning and one in the evening. He submits that
the respondents are not justified in shifting the slum-dwellers
hurriedly, only because the Division Bench has passed the
judgment in B.Krishna Bhat’s case (supra). He submits
that the Division Bench has not directed that the slum-
dwellers be shifted hurriedly and that too to a place where
there are no basic amenities.
37. Relying on the Apex Court’s judgment in the case
of NARINDER CHAND HEM RAJ AND ORS. v. LT.GOVERNOR,
84
ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY, HIMACHAL PRADESH
AND ORS., reported in AIR 1971 SC 2399, he submits that no
court can give a direction to a Government to refrain from
enforcing the provision of law. Taking shelter under the
Division Bench’s judgment, the respondents cannot
unilaterally identify a place, create semblance of infrastructure
development and force the slum-dwellers to go to an
alternative place.
38. To buttress his submission that the slum-dwellers
cannot be uprooted without being rehabilitated, the learned
counsel relies on the Division Bench’s judgment of the Delhi
High Court in the case of SUDAMA SINGH AND ORS. v.
GOVERNMENT OF DELHI AND ANR., reported in MANU/DE/
0353/2010. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision
are extracted hereinbelow:-
“26. The housing problem can be considered to be
universal, since, to date, no country has yet managed
to completely meet this basic human need. Adequate
housing serves as the crucible for human well - being
and development, bringing together elements related
to ecology, sustained and sustainable development. It
also serves as the basic unit of human settlements and
as an Indicator of the duality of life of a city or a
country's inhabitants. It reflects, among other things,
the mobilization of resources and the distribution of
85
space, as well as varied social and organizational
aspects of the relationship between Government and
society. Unfortunately, in spite of its importance, there
exists an enormous housing deficit throughout the
world. According to the United Nations, more than one
billion people are living in precarious shelter,
conditions including those who are homeless.
44. In the last four decades, on account of pressure
on agricultural land and lack of employment
opportunities in the rural areas, a large number of
people were forced to migrate to large cities like Delhi.
However, in cities, their slender means as well as lack
of access to legitimate housing, compelled them to live
in existing jhuggi clusters or even to create a new one.
They turned to big cities like Delhi only because of the
huge employment opportunities here but then they are
forced to live in jhuggies because there is no place
other than that within their means. These jhuggi
clusters constitute a major chunk of the total
population of the city. Most of these persons living in
the slums earn their livelihood as daily wage
labourers, selling vegetables and other household
items, some of them are rickshaw pullers and only few
of them are employed as regular workers in industrial
units in the vicinity while women work as domestic
maid-servants in nearby houses. Their children also
are either employed as child labour in the city; a few
fortunate among them go to the municipal schools in
the vicinity. The support service provided by these
persons (whom the Master Plan describes as ‘city
service personnel’) are indispensable to any affluent or
even middle class household. The city would simply
86
come to halt without the labour provided by these
people. Considerations of fairness require special
concern where these settled slum dwellers face threat
of being uprooted. Even though their jhuggi clusters
may be required to be legally removed for public
projects, but the consequences can be just as
devastating when they are uprooted form their
decades long settled position. What very often is
overlooked is that when a family living in a jhuggi is
forcibly evicted, each member loses a ‘bundle’ of
rights – the right to livelihood, to shelter, to health, to
education, to access to civic amenities and public
transport and above all, the right to live with dignity.
In this regard, comments of Professor Bundy on the
large number of forced evictions in South Africa, may
be noted.
52. …………. In these circumstances, removal of
their jhuggies without ensuring their relocation would
amount to gross violation of their Fundamental
Rights……..”
54. ………The Court directed the respondents to
engage meaningfully with the residents on the
timeframe of the relocation. The Court further directed
the respondents to consult with the affected residents
on each individual relocation specifically. Specifically,
the engagement was to take place one week before
the specified date for relocation. The Court went as far
as specifying exhaustive. The respondents were to
engage with the residents on:
• ascertaining the names, details and relevant
personal circumstances of those affected by each
relocation;
87
• the exact time, manner and conditions under
which the relocation would be conducted;
• the precise TRUs to be allocated to those
relocated;
• the provision of transport for those to be
relocated and for their possessions;
• the provision of transport facilities to those
affected from the temporary accommodation to
amenities such as schools, health facilities and places
of work; and the prospect of the subsequent allocation
of permanent housing to those relocated to temporary
accommodation, including information on their current
position on the housing waiting list and the provision
of assistance to those relocated in the completion of
housing subsidy application forms (para 7(11)).
55. We find no difficulty in the context of the
present case, and in the light of the jurisprudence
developed by our Supreme Court and the High Court
in the cases referred to earlier, to require the
respondents to engage meaningfully with those who
are sought to be evicted. It must be remembered that
the MPD – 2021 clearly identifies the relocation of
slum dwellers as one of the priorities for the
government. Spaces have been earmarked for housing
of the economically weaker sections. The government
will be failing in its statutory and constitutional
obligation if it fails to identify spaces equipped
infrastructurally with the civic amenities that can
ensure a decent living to those being relocated prior to
initiating the moves for eviction.
88
57. This Court would like to emphasise that the
context of the MPD, jhuggi dwellers are not to be
treated as ‘secondary’ citizens. They are entitled to no
less an access to basic survival needs as any other
citizen. It is the State’s constitutional and statutory
obligation to ensure that if the jhuggi dweller is
forcibly evicted and relocated, such jhuggi dweller is
not worse off. The relocation has to be a meaningful
exercise consistent with the rights to life, livelihood
and dignity of such jhuggi dweller.
60. The further concern is the lack of basic
amenities at the relocated site. It is not uncommon
that in the garb of evicting slums and ‘beautifying’ the
city, the State agencies in fact end up creating more
slums the only difference is that this time it is away
from the gaze of the city dwellers. The relocated sites
are invariably 30-40 kilometers away from a city
centre. The situation in these relocated sites, for
instance in Narela and Bhawana, are deplorable. The
lack of basic amenities like drinking water, water for
bathing and washing, sanitation, lack of access to
affordable public transport, lack of schools and health
care sectors, compound the problem for a jhuggi
dweller at the relocated site. The places of their
livelihood invariably continue to be located within the
city. Naturally, therefore, their lives are worse off after
forced eviction.”
39. The submissions of the learned counsel have
received my thoughtful consideration. The first question that
falls for my consideration is whether the impleading
89
application filed by Sri B.Krishna Bhat is required to be
allowed?
40. Admittedly it is the said Sri Krishna Bhat, who
initiated the public interest litigation (P.I.L. for short) in Writ
Petition No.18702/1998. On its dismissal by the Division
Bench, he took up the matter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
which set aside the Division Bench judgment. On the remand
of the matter, he prosecuted the said P.I.L. On the remanded
matter culminating in the issuance of the directions for
clearing the slums in the hospital premises, he has been
seeking its enforcement. He filed C.C.C. (Civil) Nos.2305-
2328/2013 complaining of disobedience of the Division
Bench’s judgment. Thus, as the whole exercise is initiated on
the basis of his petition and the orders passed thereon, he is
entitled to be heard in these matters. Even when the
petitioners have not sought any relief against the impleading
applicant, it cannot be said that he has no litigational
competence in the matter.
41. As per the subtle distinction between a ‘necessary
party’ and ‘proper party, brought out by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Udit Narain’s case (supra), the impleading
applicant qualifies to be atleast a proper party. I.A.No.3/14 in
90
W.P.Nos.22843-22891/2014 and I.A.No.2/14 in
W.P.Nos.22184-22191/2014 are allowed. The petitioners’ side
is directed to amend the cause title arraigning the applicant as
the additional respondent.
42. The second question that falls for my
consideration is whether the impugned notices/intimation
letters (w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæ) are liable to be quashed?
43. The impugned notices are issued in compliance
with the directions issued by the Division Bench’s judgment in
Krishna Bhat’s case (supra). The respondent-authorities
cannot be held to be at fault for acting in aid of the Court.
44. For the reasons best known to themselves, the
petitioners have not taken any steps for seeking the review of
the Division Bench’s judgment. They have not challenged it
by filing an appeal before the Honb’le Supreme Court. The
grievance that the Division Bench has passed the judgment
without hearing the slum-dwellers cannot be permitted to be
ventilated before the Single Judge. The Single Judge cannot
and should not examine the tenability of the Division Bench’s
judgment. It is not open to the Single Judge to pass any
91
order, which would have the effect of watering down the
Division Bench’s judgment.
45. Further, another Single Judge following the
Division Bench’s judgment in Krishna Bhat’s case (supra) has
negatived the challenge raised to the similar notices by the
similarly placed 23 slum-dwellers in Writ Petition
Nos.10541/2013 and 10635-638/2013 c/w Writ Petition
Nos.12883-12900/2013 disposed of on 15.7.2013. It is also
worthwhile to notice that the said order of the Single Judge
has attained the finality.
46. It is trite that the decisions of a co-ordinate bench
of equal strength are also to be followed and not to be
differed from. If an authority is required for this proposition,
it can be found in Apex Court’s judgment in the case of LILY
THOMAS AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS,
reported in ILR 2000 (6) SCC 224. The relevant portion of
the said decision is extracted below:-
“56……… The rule of law of following the
practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches
and not taking different views by the Benches of
coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be
followed and practised………”
92
47. If I take a view different from the one taken by
the co-ordinate Bench, it would give rise to an anomalous
situation. The judicial propriety, discipline and decorum
require that the challenge to the impugned notices be
negatived following the decision in Writ Petition
No.10541/2013 and 10635-638/2013 c/w Writ Petition
Nos.12883-12900/2013.
48. Even if the show cause notices were to be issued
to the petitioners as to why they should not be evicted from
the slum area in question, the outcome of the said exercise
would have been the same, as the authorities are proceeding
only to comply with the judgment of the Division Bench in
Krishna Bhat’s case (supra). As held by the Apex Court in
S.L.Kapoor’s case (supra), when on the admitted or
indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible, the court
may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural
justice, not because it approves the non-observance of
natural justice, but because the courts do not issue the futile
writs.
49. It is also profitable to refer to the Apex Court’s
judgment in the case of ESCORTS FARMS LTD. PREVIOUSLY
KNOWN AS M/S.ESCORTS FARMS (RAMGARH) LTD. v.
93
COMMISSIONER, KUMAON DIVISION, NAINITAL, U.P. AND
OTHERS, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 281 wherein, it is held that
the rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing
substantial justice and not for completing the mere ritual and
without possibility of any change in the decision of the case
on merit.
50. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the
principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the
rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just
rights. They are neither the incantations to be invoked nor
the rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. In
saying so, I am fortified by the Apex Court’s judgment in the
case of MANAGING DIRECTOR, ECIL, HYDERABAD AND
OTHERS v. B.KARUNAKAR AND OTHERS, reported in (1993)
(4) SCC 727.
51. Thus and for the foregoing reasons the second
question is liable to be answered against the petitioners
notwithstanding the heart-touching and brain-storming
arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners.
52. The third question that falls for my consideration
is what relief can be given to the petitioners. So long as the
94
Division Bench’s judgment in Krishna Bhat’s case (supra)
remains undisturbed, the question of permitting the
petitioners to reside in the slum area in question does not
arise at all. Similarly, the prayer of the petitioners that the
existing slum be developed also cannot be acceded to. The
Division Bench has unequivocally directed the State
Government to restrain itself from establishing the slum
colony inside the hospital premises. The State Government is
forbidden from developing the slum colony inside the hospital
premises.
53. But all this does not mean that the petitioning
slum-dwellers and their things are to be thrown out overnight.
They are entitled to a little breathing time. The respondents
are not in a position to demonstrate from their records that
the individual notices came to be served on all the slum-
dwellers. The case of the respondents is that many of the
slum-dwellers have resisted receiving the notice. If that be so,
the respondent authorities ought to have resorted to – (a)
affixing the notice in some conspicuous place in and around
the slum area by drawing the mahazar (b) by tom-toming and
(c) by taking out the public notice in the newspapers. None of
these modes are utilized by the respondent authorities.
95
54. The mahazar drawn by the Slum Development
Board speaks of the refusal of many slum-dwellers to receive
the notice, but there is no mentioning in the said mahazar
that the notice is affixed on any place in or near the slum area
in question. The statement that the slum-dwellers are aware
of the impugned proceedings on account of the wide publicity
given in the print and electronic media cannot be taken on its
face-value and can not be believed on the ipse dixit of the
respondent authorities. Further, the time given to the
petitioners for vacating varies from one week to three weeks.
The petitioners need to pack their things, make alternative
arrangements in and around Kudlu Village for their
employment and for the admission of their wards to the
schools and colleges.
55. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I
deem it necessary to grant two more weeks’ time to the
petitioners to vacate their homes/huts in the slum area in
question and shift to the Kudlu Village. The rigours of shifting
to an entirely new locality are to be softened by granting
them little more time.
96
56. In the result, I dispose of these writ petitions as
follows:-
i) The challenge to the impugned intimation
letters/notices (w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæ) is negatived.
ii) Two weeks’ time is granted from today to
the petitioners to vacate their residences in
the slum area in question and shift to the
premises allotted to them in Kudlu Village.
iii) The submission of the learned Advocate
General that the ownership right would be
conferred upon the slum-dwellers in
respect of the allotted apartments without
taking any amount from them is placed on
record.
iv) For the benefit of those slum-dwellers, who
have not yet approached this Court, the
Slum Development Board shall consider
affixing the public notice in and around the
slum area in question and also taking out
the public notices in the leading dailies
97
giving them atleast two weeks’ time to
vacate.
v) It is possible that there are some teething
problems in the rehabilitation project. It
should therefore be open to the petitioners
to represent to the Government and the
Slum Development Board for the redressal
of their grievances.
vi) The Government and the Slum
Development Board shall consider setting
up the Grievance Cells in Kudlu Village for
attending to the problems of the
rehabilitated persons. The problems of the
rehabilitated slum-dwellers are required to
be attended to sympathetically,
pro-actively and without any loss of time.
vii) The Government shall consider opening the
schools, colleges and hospitals in Kudlu
Village, if they are already not established.
The Government shall also consider
98
increasing the frequency of the city buses
to and from Kudlu Village.
viii) If any of the petitioners’ names are left out
