Slum dweller sought mandamus directing BDA to allot an alternative site as his 1992-allotted site was encroached upon by a third party. Court held protecting one's property against intruders is the owner's responsibility and dismissed the petition, leaving him free to proceed against the encroacher in law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:108 WP No. 11011 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 11011 OF 2022 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCCUPATION:LUGGAGE AUTO RICKSHAW DRIVER R/O. NO.1032, 7TH CROSS
OPPOSITE TO HONNALAMMA TEMPLE VIJAYANANDA NAGAR SLUM NANDINI LAYOUT POST BENGALURU-560 064.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI DHRUV VISHWAKARMA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI
Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC:108 WP No. 11011 of 2022
NO.55, ABHAYA COMPLEX RISALDAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560 020.
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2023.)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R.1; SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2; SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R.3.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT-BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 31.12.2013 AND 28.12.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ANNEXURE-G RESPECTIVELY ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
site measuring 12 square meters in Goutham Nagar Slum, J.B.Kaval, Bengaluru. The said allotment was made in the year 1992. However, in the year 2013, the petitioner gave a representation to respondent no.2 that he was allotted site no.297. However, someone else has encroached upon the site and put up an unauthorised
NC: 2024:KHC:108 WP No. 11011 of 2022
construction on the site allotted to him, and hence, he requests for an alternative site to be allotted to him. As the same has not been considered, the present writ petition is filed.
the property, it is his responsibility to protect the same against the intruders in the manner known to law. If any person illegally encroaches upon the same, it does not give him any right to ask the State Authority or its instrumentalities to allot a different site to him.
NC: 2024:KHC:108 WP No. 11011 of 2022
liberty to proceed against an illegal encroacher, if any, in
the manner known to law.
Sd/JUDGE
hkh.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a site allottee whose allotted slum site is encroached by another is entitled to an alternative site from the BDA.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Srinivas
State of Karnataka
Bangalore Development Authority
Karnataka Slum Development Board
M.I.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
