Disposed

Sri.Janardanaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2023WP/13227/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of site allotment under a Rehabilitation Scheme. It held that cogent evidence proving slum residence is necessary, granted liberty to the petitioners to produce voter identity documents within four weeks for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with liberty to petitioners to produce voter identity documents within four weeks for reconsideration of site allotment.

Sri.Janardanaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 13227 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 13227 OF 2021 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.JANARDANAIAH, S/O SRI KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. 796, 13^TH CROSS,

¶9

16^TH MAIN, EWS COLONY, 2^ND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 027.

¶10

SMT. SEEMA AHMED, D/O SRI GOLPAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO. 21/1-1, 19^TH CROSS, SARJAPURA ROAD, JAYAMAHAL, BENGALURU 560 021.

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. SUBRAMANYAM, LS/O ALTE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.27, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 068.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. SUNDARESH H C.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RPT BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 13227 of 2021

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU 560 020.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE.,AGA FOR R1; SRI. K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE INTIMATION LETTER ISSUED BY THE R2 DATED 15.01.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-H, H1 AND H2 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioners claiming to be slum dwellers at the relevant time, are knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the BDA endorsements all dated 05.01.2021 at Annexures-H,H1 & H2 whereby their request for allotment of sites under the Rehabilitation Scheme has been negatived. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of the court to various documents produced along with the petition contends that, his clients ought to have been allotted sites on the same normative process when others similarly circumstanced have been granted

¶26

ones.

¶27

¶28

WP No. 13227 of 2021

¶29

After service of notice, the State is represented by learned AGA and the BDA speaks through its Sr.Panel Counsel who opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned endorsements. He vehemently contends that the subject endorsements have been structured on the basis of some reasonable enquiry which revealed that the petitioner was not residing in the slum area at the relevant point of time and therefore no site could be allotted to him.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission made on behalf of the respondent-BDA. A Rehabilitation Scheme promulgated for the benefit of slum dwellers needs to be carefully executed and cogent evidentiary material prima facie evidencing the fact the claimants during the relevant period were residing in the slum area, needs to be placed on record. Otherwise,

¶31

¶32

WP No. 13227 of 2021

¶33

others who are disentitled to the allotment may exploit the facilities meant for the people in the lower segment of the society, for whose benefits such schemes are evolved.

¶34

The vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the normative process done by the BDA whilst allotting sites to others should necessarily result in the grant of same benefit to his clients, is bit difficult to countenance when absolutely no evidentiary material was placed before the authorities to prima facie show the credentials. No allotment of site can be done merely on the recommendation or say of some third parties that the claimant was residing in the slum area. That is too poor a ground for allotment.

¶35

There is also force in the submission of learned BDA counsel that ordinarily for making allotment what is necessary is the production of some document like the Ration Card, Power Supply Bills, Water Supply Bills, Aadhaar Card, Voter ID Card, Voters List, etc. as are enlisted by the State or Central Election Commission for

¶36

5 - WP No. 13227 of 2021

¶37

exercising franchise, which reflects residential address. However, nothing of that sort was placed on record. The only contention of the petitioners that all the evidentiary documents have vanished away when their hutments were demolished years ago, is only a self serving statement bereft of acceptability.

¶38

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed off with liberty to the petitioners to produce any one of the documents which are enlisted by the State or Central Election Commissions for establishing identity of the voters within four weeks to vouch their claim for allotment of site. If the same are produced, the respondent BDA shall reconsider its stand regardless of the impugned endorsements. All contentions are kept open.

¶39

No costs.

¶40

Bsv/Snb

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

Sri.Janardanaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Janardanaiah 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

Sri. B. v. Siddaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri D Shambaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Shariff Unnisa Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Smt Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Nirman Shelters Bangalore Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Tanusri Jain Vs Bangalore Development Authority