Disposed

Smt. Nagamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2021WP/1725/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Slum resettlement petitioners filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking mandamus to direct the completion of a building, provide construction support, and release funds to a contractor.

What did the court decide?

Direct compliance within two weeks; failing which the petition stands rejected. Further hearing listed for the second week of January 2022.

Smt. Nagamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1725/2021 (GM-SLUM)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

1 . SMT. NAGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O NINGARAJU,

¶8

2 . SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O RANGASWAMI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶9

3 . SMT. SAKAMMA W/O VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶10

4 . SMT.LAKSHMI W/O KUMARA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶11

5 . SMT. RAJAMMA W/O MAHADEVA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶12

6 . SMT. LAKSHMI W/O NANDESHA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶13

W.P.NO.1725/2021

¶14

¶15

7 . SMT.KEMPAMMA

¶16

W/O LATE SIDDANAYALKA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶17

8 . SMT.NAGAVENI W/O NARAYANA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶18

9 . SURI S/O MANI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶19

10 . SMT. NANJAMMA W/O LATE MADA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶20

11 . SMT.MADEVI W/O LATE MADEVA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶21

12 . SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O VEERABHADRA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶22

13 . SMT. NAGAMMA W/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶23

14 . SMT. SUBBAMMA W/O NOT KNOWN

¶24

15 . SMT. LAKSHMI W/O MAHADEVA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶25

16 . SMT. MANGALAMMA W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶26

W.P.NO.1725/2021

¶27

¶28

17 . SMT.NAGAMMA NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶29

18 . SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O GOVINDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶30

19 . SMT.BHAGYA W/O SOMANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶31

20 . SMT.LAKSHMI W/O SIDDANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶32

21 . NINGARAJU S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶33

22 . SMT. SARASWATHI W/O LATE GOPALA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶34

23 . SMT.RAJESHWARI W/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶35

24 . KUMARA S/O NOT KNOWN , AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶36

25 . SMT.JAYAMMA W/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶37

26 . SMT.NAGAMMA W/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶38

W.P.NO.1725/2021

¶39

¶40

27 . SMT.MADEVI W/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶41

28 . SRI.MAHADEVA S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶42

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO 6 (PART OF SY NO 2623) YADAVAGIRI SLUM, 4TH MAIN ROAD, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU 570020.

¶43

NOW SHIFTED TO:

¶44

THE FOOTPATH OF YADAVAGIRI MAIN ROAD, ADJACENT TO UNDERBRIDGE, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, SY NO 2623 (PART)

¶45

…PETITIONER/S

¶46

(BY SRI./SMT.:AMRUTESH N.P. ADVOCATE)

¶47

AND

¶48

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU 560001, REP BY CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶49

2 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING MINISTRY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.

¶50

3 . THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARNACE BOARD, NO 55, RISHALDAR ROAD,

¶51

W.P.NO.1725/2021

¶52

¶53

SESHADRIPURAM, BENGLAURU 560020.

¶54

4 . THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE CITY CORPORATION, MYSURU 570001.

¶55

5 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU 570001.

¶56

6 . MR.FAZAL PASHA ENGINEER AND CLASS 1 CONTRACTOR, NO 251, GROUND FLOOR, NEW SKR MARKET COMPLEX, CITY MARKET, BENGALURU 560002

¶57

…RESPONDENT/S

¶58

(BY SRI./SMT.: V/O DTD:08/02/2021:- AGA FOR STATE (MA NOT FILED), B.N.SURESH BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 (VK FILED)

¶59

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION WORK OF THE BUILDING AS PER VIDE ANNEXURE - E, E-1 ( STRUCTURAL DRAWING SHOWING THE NO. OF STORES BEING BUILT AND HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING PREPARED BY THE AEE, SLUM BOARD, MYSORE AND ALLOW THE PETITIONERS TO RESIDE IN THE SAID BUILDING. 2. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENTS TO GIVE ALL TYPES OF SUPPORT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE

¶60

W.P.NO.1725/2021

¶61

¶62

BUILDING FOR THE PETITIONERS REHABILITATION AS PER ANNEXURE - E, E-1. 3. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND DIRECTION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PROPER FUND TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT - CONTRACTOR, WHO HAS TAKEN UP THE WORK TO CONSTRUCT THE HOUSES WHERE THE PLACE WAS DECLARED AS PER VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND AS PER THE SKETCH VIDE ANNEXURE -D.

¶63

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS ON THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER.

¶64

ORDER

¶65

Needful within two weeks; failing which petition stands rejected on its own.

¶66

If needful is done call this matter in the second week of January, 2022.

Sd/JUDGE

TYPED BY : SK

CASE WORKER : SHL

COMPARED BY : SHL

COPY

Sd/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Smt. Nagamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nagamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Senthil Kumar D Vs Bharath and Bharath Properties

Anuradha Nootanapati Vs M/S Bharath and Bharath Properties

Balachandhran Venugopalan Vs M/S Bharath and Bharath Properites

Babu Lal Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sct Institute of Technology Vs Bangalore Water Supply

Sri. H. Santhosh Vs Smt. Lekhashree. a