Writ Petition No. 24710 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7253 WP No. 24710 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24839 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 24710 OF 2022 (LB-BMP) WRIT PETITION NO. 24839 OF 2022 (LB-BMP) C/W IN WP No. 24710/2022 BETWEEN: 1. SMT RAJESHWARI AGED 42 YEARS W/O RAJU R/A NO.182, 23RD CROSS, MARUTHINAGARA SLUM, ITTAMADU BSK 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560085
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. ASHOK PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560002 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, PADMANABANAGARA SUB DIVISION BANASHANKARI III STAGE BENGALURU – 560085 3. ASST. REVENUE OFFICER BBMP PADMANABANAGARA SUB DIVISION BANASHANKARI III STAGE Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7253 WP No. 24710 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24839 of 2022 BENGALURU – 560085 4. THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD NO.55, RISALVAR ROAD SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU - 560020 (BY SRI. B V MURALIDHAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. M.P.SRIKANTH., ADVOCATE FOR R-4) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN FILE BEARING NO.DAVA/161/RIA/PR/25/22-23 AT ANNEXURE – A, ETC. IN WP NO. 24839/2022 BETWEEN: 1. SMT NAGAMMA AGED 38 YEARS, W/O VENKATESH, R/AT 183, 23RD CROSS, MARUTHINAGARA SLUM, ITTAMADU, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560 85. (BY SRI. ASHOK PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND: ...PETITIONER 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, PADMANABANAGARA SUB DIVISION, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7253 WP No. 24710 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24839 of 2022 3. ASST. REVENUE OFFICER BBMP PADMANABANAGARA SUB DIVISION, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085. 4. THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD, NO.55, RISALVAR ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020. (BY SRI. B V MURALIDHAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI.M.P.SRIKANTH., ADVOCATE FOR R-4) ...RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2022, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT-3 IN FILE BEARING NO. DAVA/161/RIA/PR/24/22-23, AT ANNEXURE-A, ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The prayer in these writ petitions is to quash Annexure ‘A’. Annexure ‘A’ in both writ petitions is essentially a reply given in response to an application filed under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the RTI Act’) which reads as follows: “«µÀAiÀÄ: ªÀiÁ»w ºÀPÀÄÌ PÁAiÉÄÝ 2005gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁ»w PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7253 WP No. 24710 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24839 of 2022 G¯ÉèÃR: CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¢£ÁAPÀ 01.09.2022. **** ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ, ²æêÀÄw gÁeÉñÀéj, £ÀA.182, 4£Éà PÁæ¸ï, ªÀiÁgÀÄw£ÀUÀgÀ, ElÖªÀÄqÀÄ, §£À±ÀAPÀj 3£Éà ºÀAvÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560 085, DzÀ vÁªÀÅ ªÀiÁ»w ºÀPÀÄÌ PÁAiÉÄÝ 2005gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ»wUÉ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ»w §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ ªÁå¦Û zÀQët ªÀ®AiÀÄzÀ 161£Éà ªÁqïð£À°ègÀĪÀ ªÀiÁgÀÄw£ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è£À PÀqÀvÀzÀ°èj¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ £À£Àß 182£Éà ¸ÀéwÛ£À £À£Àß ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄ£É zÀÈrüÃPÀÈvÀ £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß C¥ÉÃQë¸À¯ÁVzÉ. PÉƼÀZÉ ¤ªÀÄä «ZÁgÀPÉÌ ªÁqïð-161gÀ°ègÀĪÀ ªÀiÁgÀÄw£ÀUÀgÀ PÉƼÀZÉ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è£À ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸ÀASÉå 182gÀ ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛ£À eÁUÀPÉÌ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¸ÀASÉå 4678/2005, ¢£ÁAPÀ 22.04.2009gÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉƽ¸À®Ä PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀ Ñ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è DgïJ¥sïJ £ÀA.611/2009£ÀÄß ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ 27.07.2009 gÀAzÀÄ AiÀÄxÁ¹Üw PÁAiÀÄÄÝPÉƼÀî®Ä DzÉò¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ WÀ£À GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CAwªÀÄ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À¯ÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÉÆñÀzÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 26.04.2012 gÀAzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ »A§gÀºÀ ¤Ãr ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß «vÀj¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÁzÀÝjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ zÁR°¹gÀĪÀ WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå.2400/2022 ¸ÀºÀ ZÁ°ÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¥Àæw ¤ÃqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉA§ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄUÉ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ. ” ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÇ 2. Similar reply was given in respect of property No.183 as per Annexure ‘A’ to W.P. No.24389 of 2022. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7253 WP No. 24710 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24839 of 2022 3. As could be seen from the above, the replies given under the RTI Act basically state that, it would not be possible for the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('the BBMP') to issue a copy of the Possession Certificate, in view of the fact that the suit filed against the petitioners had been decreed and the appeal filed by the petitioners have also been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the proposed respondent submits that the impleading applicant had filed a suit in O.S. No.4678 of 2005 and the same was decreed (a copy of which is produced along with the application). 5. The said suit filed by the impleading applicant was decreed and ‘B’ schedule property therein was declared to be the public road, upon which she had the right of ingress and egress. The Trial Court has also granted an order of mandatory injunction directing the petitioner herein to remove the unauthorized and illegal construction put up by him - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7253 WP No. 24710 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24839 of 2022 over the ‘B’ schedule property which was declared as a road, failing which the impleading applicant was at liberty to get the same removed through the process of the Court. 6. The learned counsel also points out that as against the said decree, an appeal was preferred in R.F.A. No.611 of 2009 by the petitioner, but the same was also dismissed. 7. He also submits that the decree was put to execution and in the execution, an application was filed for resisting the execution of the decree and the same was also dismissed. 8. He submits that subsequently, suits for injunction were also filed in O.S. No.2285 of 2022 & O.S. No.2400 of 2022 which were only for a decree of injunction and the Trial Court had vacated the interim
Decision
order in the said suits, as against which a miscellaneous first appeal was also dismissed. He - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7253 WP No. 24710 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24839 of 2022 therefore submits that the petitioners have no right whatsoever to challenge Annexure ‘A’. 9. In my view, since the petitioners have suffered a decree which have become final, it would be impermissible for the petitioners to stake any claim over the properties which have been the subject matter of the suits and the petitioners cannot therefore seek for issuance of Possession Certificate. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners would have no right in respect of the property which was the subject matter of O.S. No.4678 of 2005 and RFA No.611 of 2005, the petitioners may be permitted to give a representation to the Slum Board to consider allotting the remaining land (apart from the land which the petitioners have been evicted from, as a result of the decrees passed in O.S. No.4678 of 2005 and RFA No.611 of 2009). 11. If such representations are given, and if there is any land remaining after considering the schedule - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7253 WP No. 24710 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24839 of 2022 properties in O.S. No.4678 of 2005 and RFA No.611 of 2009, the Slum Board may consider the claims of the petitioners. 12. The writ petitions are therefore dismissed, subject to the above observation. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71