Dr B Manjunath Vs the Slum Clearance Board

SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R2 TO R4 SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R6 SRI. C.V. GANAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R10)

¶54

¶55

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.02.2017 ANNEXURE-R PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT AN ALTERNATE LAND TO THE PETITIONERS IN THE AREA COMING UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE R5 AND R6 AND ETC.

¶56

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

¶57

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶58

5 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:47441 WP No. 3349 of 2022

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

ORAL ORDER

¶62

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶63

In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is to direct Respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 10.02.2017 Annexure-R to the writ petition.

¶64

Sri Siddharth B.Muchandi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the land belonging to the petitioners has been acquired by the Respondent- Authorities as per the acquisition proceedings at Annexure-E dated 11.04.1986. In this regard, the learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to the Order dated 09.07.2019 in W.P.No.17935/2010 (Annexure-Q) and submitted that, the Respondent No.2 be directed to consider the representation at Annexure-R.

¶65

Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents, submitted that, the land belonging to the petitioners has not been utilized by either of the respondents and therefore, awarding compensation in respect of the subject land does not arise for consideration and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶66

6 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:47441 WP No. 3349 of 2022

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 09.07.2019 in W.P.No.17935 of 2010 (Annexure-Q), wherein at paragraph 20 of the said order it is held as follows :

¶70

"20. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders at Annexures - M, N, P and T are hereby quashed.

¶71

The matter is remanded to respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner to inspect the spot along with the present petitioners and the respondent No.1-Board and localists/slum dwellers. After proper spot inspection and drawing up of mahazar, he can proceed strictly in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that mere quashing of the impugned orders under challenge, would not authorize the petitioners to dispossess the slum dwellers, who are residing property in question without due course of law.

¶72

In view of disposal of the main writ petition, question of considering I.A. Nos. 1/2016 and 2/2016 filed by the impleading applicants would not arise as the interest of the applicants is also protected."

¶73

Since this court in the aforesaid writ petition has directed Respondent No.2 to consider the grievance of the parties, there is no impediment for Respondent No.2 to consider the

¶74

7 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:47441 WP No. 3349 of 2022

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

representation dated 10.02.2017 at Annexure-R, in accordance

¶78

with law within a period of 4 (four) months from the date receipt of a copy of this order and the result of the same be made known to the petitioners, without fail.

¶79

With the above said observation, Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶80

SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶81

rs

¶82

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Dr B Manjunath v. the Slum Clearance Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr B Manjunath v. the Slum Clearance Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Naresh Kumar Vs Hbd Financial Services Limited

Sri Sujaya Poojary Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Srinath Chowdappa Vs the Director of Frro

Sri M a Abdul Reheman Vs the Tahasildar

Kansa Properties LLP Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Jayadev Motors Vs the Authorised Officer