Allowed

The Karnataka Slum Development Board v. Smt Jayamma

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2024RP/360/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review by the Slum Development Board against a writ judgment noting land had not been transferred under the 1973 Act. Delay condoned; review allowed and BDA directed to deliver subject land in terms of Section 27(3) within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Review allowed; delay condoned; judgment supplemented with a clause directing BDA to deliver the subject land per Sec. 27(3) within eight weeks.

The Karnataka Slum Development Board Vs Smt Jayamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45251 RP No. 360 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

REVIEW PETITION NO. 360 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.55, ABHAYA COMPLEX, 3^RD FLOOR, RISALDAR STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. B B PATIL.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O JAYADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO. 792, 32^ND MAIN, JAI MARUTHINAGARA SLUM, NADHINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 096.

¶14

SMT. NARASAMMA W/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT NO. 798/B, H.M. NAYAKA ROAD, JAI MARUTHINAGARA SLUM, NADHINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 096.

¶15

SMT. NARASAMMA W/O SHIVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 797, H.M. NAYAKA ROAD, LAGGERE, JAI MARUTHINAGARA SLUM, NADHINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 096.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:45251 RP No. 360 of 2023

¶17

SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO. 791, 32^ND MAIN, JAI MARUTHINAGARA SLUM, NADHINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 096.

¶18

SRI. SRINIVASA S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT 758/C, H.M. NAYAKA ROAD, JAI MARUTHINAGARA SLUM, NADHINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 096.

¶19

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

¶20

THE DEPUTY SECERTARY-3 BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SUNDARESH H C.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. SURAJ PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R7-ABSENT; SRI. RAJAKUMAR M., AGA FOR R8; R6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 17/04/2023 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3200/2022 C/W W.P.NO.3278/2022, 18096/2022, 3252/2022, 3294/2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45251 RP No. 360 of 2023

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Application in I.A.No.1/2023 supported by an affidavit seeks condonation of short delay of 49 days. Explanation being plausible and delay brooked being too short to be little, the said application is favoured and delay is condonded in filing the Review Petition.

¶30

Learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner points out the infirmity in the judgment now put in review, whereby the petition was disposed off to the effect that in the absence of transfer of land as contemplated u/s.27(3) of Karnataka Slum Areas Development Act, 1973, no relief which the writ petitioner had sought for by way of execution of the conveyance can be effectuated.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that who grants land to him is not his business, provided the land is allotted to him; learned Addl. Government Advocate obviously has to stand by

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:45251 RP No. 360 of 2023

¶34

Government Order dated 23.02.2021 which needs to be

¶35

given effect to in terms of Sec.27(3) of 1973 Act. There is none from the side of BDA despite service of notice. However, that will not deter the court from passing orders in the case in accordance with law.

¶36

In the above circumstances, this Review Petition having been favoured and the subject judgment will have another clause in its operative portion to the effect that the BDA shall deliver the subject land in favour of Review Petitioner by giving effect to the relief column of the judgment in terms of Sec.27(3) of 1973 Act within a period of eight weeks.

¶37

Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Commissioner, BDA for information and needful action.

¶38

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶39

Snb/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

The Karnataka Slum Development Board v. Smt Jayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Slum Development Board v. Smt Jayamma

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

Udayakumar Shetty Vs Seetharama Shetty

Sri Adichunchanagri Vidyavarthaka Trust R Vs Siloam Zion Gospel Fellowship

Sri M N Srinivasa, Vs Siddaraju

Pigeon Education Technology India Private Limited Vs the Directorate of Enforcement

Aishwaryagiri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Joseph George Vs the Government of Karnataka