SMT MUNIYAMMA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI.B.VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4; SRI.SIDDHARTH.P.DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R-5) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE P1 DATED 13.06.2019 AND PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 9 DATED 25.03.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-G, G1 TO G8 RESPECTIVELY FOR ALLOTMENT OF SITES BEARING NO.2497, 2498, 2499, 2500, 2501, 2502, - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:14663 WP No. 673 of 2023 2503, 2504 AND 2505 MEASURING 9 X 6 MTRS EACH SITUATED AT BANASHANKARI, 3RD BLOCK, 6TH STAGE LAYOUT IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS AS AN ALTERNATIVE SITES AND ALSO TO EXECUTE ABSOLUTE SALE DEED OF THE SITE IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER THE CD REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BDA, BENGALURU SOUTH DIVISION AS PER ANNEXURE-J, J1 TO J8 DATED 11.07.2019 IN LIEU OF UTILIZING THE PETITIONERS SITES BEARING NO.451, 452, 453, 454, 455,458, 459, 460 AND 512 AS PER ANNEXURE-A, A1 TO A8 DATED 31.07.2007 AND 02.02.2007 RESPECTIVELY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI STORIED RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

1. On 31.01.2007, the Bangalore Development Authority (“the BDA”) allotted site bearing Nos.451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 458, 459, 460 and 512 which were carved out as Sy. Nos.8 and 10 of Gangondahalli village, Arundathi Nagar Slum, Chandra Layout in favour of the petitioners. These sites measured approximately about 500 to 600 sq.ft.

2. On 22.01.1999, the BDA passed a resolution vide Resolution No.10/99 in the following terms – - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:14663 WP No. 673 of 2023 “E) CgÀÄAzsÀw£ÀUÀgÀ PÉƼÀZÉ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ UÀAUÉÆAqÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.8 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 10gÀ°è ºÁ° C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV ªÁ¸À«gÀĪÀ 450 d£ÀgÀ ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¹ PÉƼÀZÉ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ ZÁ°Û ºÀAaPÉ zÀgÀªÁzÀ ZÀzÀgÀ «ÄÃlgïUÉ gÀÆ.130-00gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ªÀiË®åªÀ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸Ë®¨s Àå ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ 63d£ÀgÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀåPÀÌ£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV ¨ÉÃgÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀܼÁAvÀj¸À®Ä CxÀªÁ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸Ë®¨s Àå ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£Éßà ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ §zÀ¯Á¬Ä¸À®Ä;”

3. As could be seen from the above resolution, the BDA had resolved to regularize the possession of the dwellers in said locality by allotting sites at the rate of Rs.130/- sq. mtrs.

4. Pursuant to this resolution, allotment of sites bearing Nos.451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 458, 459, 460 and 512 were made to the petitioners on 31.01.2007. Sital values were also demanded and collected from the petitioners. Out of the nine petitioners, sale deeds were also executed in favour of petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 9, while allotment letters had been issued to the other petitioners. It is stated in the counter of the BDA, the sale deeds were not executed in - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:14663 WP No. 673 of 2023 respect of the other petitioners since it had received a complaint regarding their allotment.

5. As the matter stood thus, the Karnataka Slum Development Board (“the Slum Board”) i.e., respondent No.5 proceeded to demolish the dwelling houses of the petitioners, thereby dispossessing them, and proceeded to start the construction of a multi-storied residential complex. The petitioners being aggrieved by this action of the Slum Board, approached the BDA, and the BDA, in turn, by communication dated 09.04.2012, stated as follows to the Slum Board - “ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ZÀAzÁæ§qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ 1£Éà ºÀAvÀ, 1£Éà ¥sÉÃ¸ï £À CgÀÄAzsÀw£ÀUÀgÀ ¸ÀèA£À°è ¹zÀÞUÀAUÁ ¸ÀÆÌ¯ï ºÀwÛgÀ 60 Cr gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ C©üªÀÄÄRªÁV vÀªÀÄä E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ BSUP AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤«Äð¸À®Ä PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄAqÀ½¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹gÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «AUÀr¹ £ÀªÉñÀ£ÀzÁgÀjUÉ ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj C£ÀĪÉÆâvÀ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁ»wUÁV ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ºÀAaPÉzÁgÀgÀÄ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÜVvÀUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀAvÉ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:14663 WP No. 673 of 2023 DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ vÀªÀÄUÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄUÉ AiÀiÁjAzÀ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀj¸À¯ÁVzÉ? ºÁUÀÆ ©rJ¬ÄAzÀ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀj¸À¯ÁVzÉAiÉÄà CxÀªÁ E®èªÉà JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ vÀPÀët «ªÀgÀ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ºÁUÀÆ C°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÜVvÀUÉƽ¸À®Ä F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÉÆÃjzÉ.”

6. As could be seen from the abovesaid communication, the BDA called upon the Slum Board to inform them as to who had handed over the possession of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.8 and 10 that belonged to the BDA.

7. In response, a communication dated 23.06.2012 was addressed by the Slum Board to the BDA. The said response reads as follows – “ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ “¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ UÉÆëAzÀgÁd£ÀUÀgÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁPÉëÃvÀæzÀ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è §gÀĪÀ ZÀAzÁæ§qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ 1£Éà ºÀAvÀ, 1£Éà ¥sÉøï£À ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.8 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 10gÀ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è ©J¸ïAiÀÄĦ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è 96(f+3) ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À (In-situ) PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ªÀÄAdÆgÁVzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄAqÀ½ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæUÀwAiÀÄ ºÀAvÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj PÁªÀÄUÁjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, PÁªÀÄUÁj PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è PÉƼÀZÉ ¤ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ C°èAiÉÄà - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:14663 WP No. 673 of 2023 ªÁ¹¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÁ¹UÀ½UÉ ©J¸ïAiÀÄĦ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤«Äð¸À®Ä C°è£À J¯Áè PÉƼÀZÉ ¤ªÁ¹UÀ¼À ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DyðPÀ ¸À«ÄÃPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr §AiÉÆêÉÄnæPï PÁqïð vÉUÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ M¼ÀUÉÆAqÀAvÉ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸À¯ÁVzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«UÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ EPÉÌ®UÀ¼À°è vÁvÁÌ°PÀ ±ÉqïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤«Äð¹ ªÀ¸Àw ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ PÀ°à¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 09.04.2012gÀAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ, £ÀA.3, ¥À²ÑªÀÄ G¥À«¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ, ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¸ÀPÁ¤C £ÀA.1£Éà G¥À«¨sÁUÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹gÀĪÀ PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ©.r.J ¸ÀA¸ÉܬÄAzÀ F »AzÉAiÉÄà ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «AUÀr¹ ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¸ÀÄvÁÛ ¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÉñÀ£À ºÀAaPÉzÁgÀgÀÄ ©.r.J PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÜVvÀUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸ÀzÀj PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÜVvÀUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀAvÉ G¯ÉèÃR(1)gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. (¥Àæw ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ.) ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:21.06.2012gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀ¸Àw ¸ÀaªÀgÀ UÀȺÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è £ÀqÉzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ZÀZÉðAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, F »AzÉ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ºÀAaPÉ ¥ÀvÀæ ¥ÀqÉzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁdgÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¸À¨sÉÃAiÀÄ°è PÉÊUÉÆAqÀ ¤tðAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀ¸Àw ¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ F »AzÉ ©.r.J ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀ CºÀ𠤪ÉñÀ£ÀzÁgÀjUÉ F ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ §zÀ¯ÁV ¨ÉÃgÉPÀqÉ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:14663 WP No. 673 of 2023 CzÀgÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀ¸Àw ¸ÀaªÀgÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀzÀAvÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è F »AzÉ vÀªÀÄä ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ºÀAZÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ J¯Áè ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÁgÀjUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉPÀqÉ §zÀ°Ã ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ°à¹ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.8 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 10gÀ°è ¥ÀæUÀwAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀ®Ä ¤gÁPÉëÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.”

8. As could be seen from the above response, on

21.06.2012, a meeting was conducted wherein the Minister for Housing had informed the BDA that alternative sites would have to be arranged to the petitioners who had been dispossessed.

9. It may also be pertinent to state that on 25.02.2019 and on 08.03.2019, the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister addressed letters to the BDA asking the BDA to take action in accordance with the rules regarding the complaint made by the petitioners about their illegal dispossession.

10. On receipt of said communication from the Hon’ble Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister, the BDA proceeded to issue a communication dated 30.08.2019 to - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:14663 WP No. 673 of 2023 the Commissioner of the Slum Board informing them that the petitioners herein were allotted the aforementioned sites. The petitioners, thereafter, submitted representations requesting for alternate sites being allotted to them.

11. The petitioners have produced the correct dimension reports in relation to site Nos.2497, 2498, 2499, 2500, 2501, 2502, 2503, 2504 and 2505. These sites were identified obviously because the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister had asked the BDA to act in accordance with law. The fact that the BDA identified these sites indicates that it was in agreement with the direction of the Housing Minister to allot alternative sites to the petitioners because they had been illegally dispossessed.

12. However, an argument is now sought to be advanced that the BDA cannot allot alternative sites by virtue of Rule 11-A of Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (“the Rules”). It is contended under Rule 11-A of the Rules that the BDA is obligated to allot - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:14663 WP No. 673 of 2023 alternative sites only if the Authority is unable to hand over possession to the allottees due to stay orders and since the BDA had handed over possession of the sites to the petitioners, they would be unable to allot alternative sites. This argument of the BDA is required to be stated, only to be rejected.

13. Rule 11-A provides for granting of an alternative site. There is no doubt that this Rule states that when the Authority is unable to hand over possession due to stay orders of the Court. However, it is important to notice that the Rule also states that if the BDA is unable to hand over possession of a site for any other reason also, the Authority is obliged to allot an alternative site. If the BDA had allotted an alternative site and that site was taken over by another statutory body, it is obvious that the BDA is unable to hand over possession to the allottees. Merely because the possession certificates were given and, in some cases, sale deeds were executed does not mean that the BDA can put forth the contention that it has already - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:14663 WP No. 673 of 2023 handed over possession and, thereby, wash its hands of the problem created by another statutory body, namely— the Slum Board.

14. It is to be noticed here that the BDA had regularized the possession of the petitioners by allotting them the sites which was already in their possession and in which they had dwelling houses that they were residing therein. If the petitioners who were already in possession are dispossessed by the Slum Board, and the BDA had in fact taken up the issue with the Board and had a meeting with the Slum Board officials whereby the Minister had observed that it was the duty of the BDA to allot alternative sites, the BDA cannot place place reliance on Rule 11-A to escape its responsibility. In fact, this attempt of the BDA to shirk its responsibility in cases relating to economically weaker section, which it sought to initially help by regularising their possession, cannot be appreciated at all. - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC:14663 WP No. 673 of 2023

15. The BDA, on one hand, is seeking to ameliorate the conditions of the poor people who were living in the Slum by regularizing their possession and on the other hand, after allotment, is trying to wash its hands off by stating that the Rule does not provide for allotting an alternative site.

16. In this regard, the fact that the Housing Minister, the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister directed the BDA to take action in accordance with law, by itself, clearly indicates that BDA was not only under a moral obligation but also under a legal obligation to allot alternative site to the petitioners. The fact that the BDA went on to identify sites, obtained CD reports for allotting the sites to the petitioners also indicates that the BDA was conscious of its responsibility to allot an alternative site to the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the reliance placed on Rule 11-A to escape responsibility cannot be accepted at all and this conduct deserves to be deprecated. - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC:14663 WP No. 673 of 2023

17. As a consequence, in light of the fact that the BDA has itself identified alternative sites bearing Nos.2497, 2498, 2499, 2500, 2501, 2502, 2503, 2504 and 2505 to be allotted to the petitioners, it would be appropriate to direct the BDA to allot these alternative sites within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by executing all such necessary documents in favour of the petitioners.

18. However, the relief to be granted to the petitioners cannot be restricted only by issuing a direction to conclude the allotment of alternative sites.

19. The Slum Board has committed a blatant illegality in demolishing the houses of the petitioners, thereby dispossessing them despite the fact that they had been allotted a site by the BDA on the basis of their unauthorized possession. The Slum Board, being a statutory Board, cannot usurp a private person’s lands on the ground that it is intending to build a multi-storied residential complex for slum dwellers. The rule of law - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC:14663 WP No. 673 of 2023 would equally apply to the Board and the Board cannot take law into its own hands and dispossess the petitioners from their respective properties.

20. It is to be kept in mind that that the petitioners were residing in the properties which had been allotted to them even prior to the allotment and they had also put up small dwellings, and the demolition of these structures for the purpose of erecting a multi-storied complex has virtually destroyed the life of the petitioners. I am therefore of the view that the Board would have to compensate the petitioners by paying the petitioners the cost constructing dwelling houses in the alternative sites which are ordered to be allotted as stated above to remedy the gross injustice caused to them.

21. Learned counsel for the Slum Board, on instructions of the Engineer who is present before the Court, submitted that the Slum Board is prepared to allot units/apartments which are to be constructed in Laggeri in lieu of the lands - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC:14663 WP No. 673 of 2023 utilized by the Housing Board. In my view, this offer by the Slum Board is too little and too late.

22. To a specific query as to the cost of construction on a site measuring 20ft. x 30ft., the learned counsel, on instructions, submits that the Slum Board is spending a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- for construction of its units, out of which the allottees pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, while the State Government contributes a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and the Central Government contributes Rs.1,50,000/- for construction of the quarters by the Slum Board.

23. In my view, having regard to the fact that the Slum Board itself admits that it would cost about Rs.7,50,000/- to construct its unit (which it offers to allot to the petitioners) it would be appropriate and just if said amount is ordered to be paid to the petitioners to enable them to construct their houses on the alternative sites that would be conveyed to them by the BDA. - 17 - NC: 2024:KHC:14663 WP No. 673 of 2023

24. Consequently, the Slum Board is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for each of the petitioners before this Court i.e., Rs. 45 lakhs, in all. The petitioners shall, on completion of the construction, furnish proof of the construction and, thereafter, each of them shall collect a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from this Court. It will be open to the Slum Board to inspect and verify whether a construction has been put up by the petitioners in said site that is to be allotted to them by the BDA.

25. The Slum Board is directed to deposit said sum within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

26. This writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above observations. Sd/- JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46