Disposed

Smt Beekamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2024WP/2216/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the failure to comply with the Karnataka Slum Development Act, 1973. The court disposed of the petition but reserved liberty to allow petitioners to seek instalment payment for the required rehabilitation fee, pending which dispossession is stayed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to seek payment of Rs. One lakh in instalments; respondents barred from coercive dispossession.

Smt Beekamma Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34630 WP No. 2216 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2216 OF 2024 (GM-SLUM)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT BEEKAMMA W/O SHRI TIPPESH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

¶7

SMT KALAVATHI W/O SHRI SHASHIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

¶8

SMT LAKSHMI W/O KUMAR

¶9

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

¶10

SMT BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE SHRI RAJU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

¶11

SMT MALLI W/O SHRI MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT LAKSHMI W/O SHRI RAVI

¶14

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

¶15

SMT RANI W/O LATE SHRI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶16

SMT AMMU W/O SHRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶17

SMT MALLAMMA W/O SHRI PANDU AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:34630 WP No. 2216 of 2024

¶20

SMT SARASWATHI W/O LATE SHRI SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

¶21

SMT SHAKUNTHALA W/O GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶22

SMT NETHRA W/O SHRI ASHOK GOSANGI AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

¶23

SMT RADHAMMA W/O SHRI ANU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

¶24

SMT SAROJAMMA W/O SHRI KIRANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶25

SMT KENCHAMMA W/O SHRI JINNA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

¶26

SMT SUBBAMMA W/O LATE SHRI MUTHYALAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶27

SMT MANJULA W/O SHRI DADU AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

¶28

SMT LAKSHMI W/O SHRI LATE NAGESH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

¶29

SMT BHAGYA W/O SHRI NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

¶30

SMT SUNITHA W/O SHRI RANGANATH AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34630 WP No. 2216 of 2024

¶32

SMT MARAKKA W/O ANJANAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶33

SMT THAYAMMA W/O MURGESH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

¶34

SMT JAIBUN W/O HUSEEN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶35

SMT AMBIKA W/O KENCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

¶36

SMT GOWRI C/O MURUGA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶37

ALL ARE R/AT MACHOHALLI, AMBEDKAR NAGAR MAGADI ROAD, KADABAGERE CROSS NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560091.

¶38

…PETITIONERS

¶39

(BY SRI. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

¶42

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING VIKASA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

¶43

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:34630 WP No. 2216 of 2024

¶46

KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD RISALAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶47

STATION HOUSE OFFICER MADANAYAKANAHALLY POLICE STATION MADANAYAKANAHALLY BENGALURU-562162.

¶48

…RESPONDENTS

¶49

(BY SRI. N B PATIL, LEARNED AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶50

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO EXPEDITIOUSLY COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA SLUM (DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1973 INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

¶51

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶52

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶53

ORAL ORDER

¶54

The petitioners are the slum dwellers and a proposal was submitted by the respondent No.4 to rehabilitate the petitioners in Sy.No.80 in Giddenahalli village. The State Government approved the proposal submitted by the respondent No.4.

¶55

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the subsequent approval of the proposal by the State Government, the respondent No.4 has issued an intimation to the slum dwellers, who are sought to be rehabilitated to pay a sum of Rs.One lakh for allotment of house in the rehabilitated area. Therefore, the relief sought for in this writ petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:34630 WP No. 2216 of 2024

¶57

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i) The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to submit representations with the respondent No.4 for paying the amount of Rs.One lakh for allotment of house in instalment. If such representations are submitted, the respondent No.4 is under an obligation to consider the same sympathetically.

¶60

Till then, the respondents shall not take coercive steps to dispossess the petitioners.

¶61

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶62

BKM

Smt Beekamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Beekamma v. 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

D T Prakash Vs Lingaraju

Sri Ganesh Narayana Nayak Vs Smt K Malathi Nayak

P. Subramanyam Vs State of Karnataka

Dr G C Prakash Vs the Union of India

Suresh Sebastian D Souza Vs M/S Canara Bank

M/S Wobhillahi Vs Canara Bank