Allowed¶72

Sri B Basavaraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2025WP/7118/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Slum land acquisition — non-payment of compensation; Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973, Sections 3, 17, 20 and 24; Article 300A contention; writ of mandamus for compensation with statutory interest; Slum Board reply dated 15.06.2018 (Annexure-N) admitting entitlement; letter dated 27.07.2021 (Annexure-R) recording 1540 sq.ft. acquisition; Vidya Devi, (2020) 2 SCC 569 relied on; WP No. 7118 of 2022 (GM-SLUM), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, E.S. Indiresh J., decided 12.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus issued to respondents No.1 to 5 to pay compensation to the petitioners as per Section 20 of the Act, together with interest as per Section 24 of the Act, within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶72

Sri B Basavaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶72

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation (with interest) for the land of the original petitioner acquired through the slum-area notifications of 21.11.1995 and 19.11.2003 under the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973, compensation having remained unpaid, and whether a writ of mandamus should issue to the respondent-authorities to pay it. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

Denial of compensation by the respondent-authorities is contrary to the declaration of law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidya Devi (supra) that the right to property is a human right; the petitioners are therefore entitled to compensation.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

From the sketch at Annexure-F, the site belonging to the petitioner is shown as being acquired for construction of Apartments by the respondent-Board; read with the letter dated 27.07.2021 (Annexure-R) recording acquisition of 1540 sq.ft. in the petitioner's name, the petitioner's land stands identified as acquired.

¶58

Key takeaways

The respondent-Board's contention that the petitioner's property is not acquired and that a joint survey/identification is required cannot be accepted, in view of the Board's own admission in its reply dated 15.06.2018 (Annexure-N) that the petitioner cannot seek an alternative site but is entitled to compensation.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (GM-SLUM) by the legal heirs of late B. Basavaraju, absolute owner (registered Sale Deed dated 22.09.1986, Annexure-A) of residential Site No.35 (Corporation No.2202/29A; khatha 2203/29B), Devaraja Mohalla, Mysuru, whose land was notified as Slum by Notification dated 21.11.1995 (Annexure-D) and acquired by Notification dated 19.11.2003 under Section 17 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 along with other properties of khatha Nos.3 to 32A of RMC Yard Slum Area, Mysuru. Compensation was never paid despite the Slum Board's reply dated 15.06.2018 (Annexure-N) that the petitioner could not demand an alternative site but was 'at best' entitled to compensation, and a letter dated 27.07.2021 (Annexure-R) recording acquisition of 1540 sq.ft. in the petitioner's name; the sketch at Annexure-F showed the petitioner's site taken for construction of Apartments by the Board. Rejecting the Board's plea that the land was unidentifiable and required a joint survey as untenable in the face of its own admission, and relying on Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569 (right to property construed as a human right), the Court held the denial of compensation contrary to that declaration of law; writ petition allowed; mandamus issued to respondents 1 to 5 to pay compensation under Section 20 and interest under Section 24 of the Act within four months.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:52800 WP No. 7118 of 2022

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 7118 OF 2022 (GM-SLUM)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI B BASAVARAJU (SINCE DEAD) 1(A) MRS. SHWETHA MYSORE BASAVARAJ D/O LATE B BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT SRI. BASAVANUGRAHA 22^ND MAIN, 19^TH CROSS J.P. NAGAR 5^TH PHASE BENGALURU- 560078. 1(B) MRS. SHALINI B D/O LATE B BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.15, NEAR SHIVA TEMPLE BIDADI MAIN ROAD, BIDADI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562109. 1(C) MR. LOHITH B S/O LATE B BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT 1119/CH-2 VANI VILAS ROAD CHAMARAJA PURAM MYSORE- 570025. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S., ADV.)

¶11

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52800 WP No. 7118 of 2022

¶12

HC-KAR

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA SLUM BOARD DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.55, ABHAYA COMPLEX, 3^RD FLOOR, RISALDHAR STREET SHESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-560020.

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2^ND DIVISION, NO.4 MODEL HOUSE, VIVEKANANDA ROAD YADAVAGIRI OPP. GUJARATHI SAMUDAYA BHAVANA MYSORE-570020.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA SLUM BOARD DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2^ND DIVISION, NO.4, MODEL HOUSE VIVEKANANDA ROAD YADAVAGIRI OPP. GUJARATI SAMUDAYA BHAVANA MYSORE-570020.

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER J L B ROAD, NEAR GOVERNMENT MAHARANI SENIOR COLLEGE, K G KOPPAL CHAMRAJPURAM MYSURU-570005.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 & R5 SRI B.N. SURESH BABU, ADV. FOR R2 TO 4)

¶20

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52800 WP No. 7118 of 2022

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

RESPONDENTS TO PAY COMPENSATION ALONG WITH OTHER ENTITLEMENTS INCLUDING INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 24 PERCENT PER ANNUM WITH REGARD TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY WAY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 19.11.2003 ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioners that the original petitioner, Sri B. Basavaraju was the absolute owner of a residential site bearing No.35 (Corporation No.2202/29A),

¶29

situated near Railway Lane, Behind New Santhepet, Devaraja Mohalla, Mysuru City, having acquired by him under the registered Sale Deed dated 22.09.1986 (Annexure-A). It is the case of the petitioner that revenue entries stand in the name of the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner has filed self declaration of property tax to the Mysuru City Corporation. It is further stated in the petition that, the Government of Karnataka by Notification dated 21.11.1995 notified the land

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:52800 WP No. 7118 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

belonging to the petitioner along with other adjacent properties as Slum, for the purpose of providing shelter to slum dwellers under the provisions of Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 (for short “the Act”) (Annexure-D).

¶34

It is further case of the petitioner that though the land belonging to the petitioner has been acquired, however, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner and as such the petitioner has issued Legal Notice dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure-H) seeking compensation in respect of the acquisition of the land by the respondent. Thereafter, another Legal Notice at Annexure-H1 was issued on 30.01.2013. Subsequently, respondent No.3, as per reply dated 15.06.2018 (Annexure-N) admitted about payment of compensation to the petitioner. In this regard, petitioner also produced a letter dated 27.07.2021 (Annexure-R) addressed by respondent No.3 to respondent No.5 as to the acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioner to an extent of 1540 sq.ft. Therefore, it

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52800 WP No. 7118 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

is the contention of the petitioner that the land belonging

¶38

to the petitioner has been acquired, however, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

¶39

I have heard Mr.Chandrashekar S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Mahantesh Shettar, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 5 and Sri.B.N.Suresh Babhu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 4.

¶40

Sri. Chandrashekar S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the khatha extract of the property in question as mentioned at Annexure-B that, the khatha of the property in question is No.2203/29B. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to declaration made under Section 3 of the Act, wherein it is stated that khatha from 3 to 32(A) belonging to respective owners have been acquired for the purpose of providing shelter to the Slum

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:52800 WP No. 7118 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Dwellers. It is also brought to the notice of the Court as

¶44

to the reply made by respondent No.3 in respect of the payment of compensation is concerned. Accordingly, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in question has been acquired by the respondentAuthorities, in terms of acquisition proceedings under the Act, however, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner and accordingly it is a clear violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Therefore sought for a writ of mandamus to the respondent-authorities to pay compensation.

¶45

Per contra, Sri. B.N.Suresh Babu, learned counsel representing the respondent-Slum Board sought to justify the fact that the land which is claimed by the petitioner is unidentifiable, that apart, land belonging to the petitioner has not been notified under Section 3 of the Act and therefore, disputed the ownership of the petitioner, in respect of the subject land is concerned.

¶46

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:52800 WP No. 7118 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

It is further argued by the learned counsel appearing

¶49

for the respondents No.2 to 4 by producing a letter dated 30.08.2024 wherein, it is stated that a joint survey has to be made in respect of the subject land and in the event if the land belonging to the petitioner has been identified and is being acquired by the respondent-Authorities then the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the Act. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶50

Learned AGA Sri.Mahantesh Shettar argued on the similar lines with the learned counsel representing the respondent-Slum Board and submitted that, since there is disputed question of title that is to be resolved, and as such, there is no occasion for the respondent-authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner, unless title of the petitioner is established therein. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶51

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioners had

¶52

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:52800 WP No. 7118 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

produced the Sale Deed dated 22.09.1986 at Annexure-A, as the petitioner has purchased the site No.35, (Corporation No.2203/29A), new No.D-28. It is also forthcoming from the khatha of the property in question produced at Annexure-B wherein it is stated that, the site

¶55

number has been shown as 2203 and khatha of the property in question is 29B. In this regard, on careful examination of the declaration made under Section 3 of the Act would indicate that the respondent-authorities have sought to acquire the land in question belonging to various owners having khatha No.3 to 32A, and further it is also reflected in Annexure-D that the land belonging to Sri.Premnath and others at RMC Yard Slum Area as per the Notification dated 21.11.1995. It is also forthcoming from the acquisition Notification under Section 17 of the Act, dated 19.11.2003 (Annexure-E) wherein it is stated that the site belonging to various persons from khatha Nos.3 to 32A of RMC Yard Slum Area, Mysuru have been acquired for the benefit of the Slum Dwellers. It is also

¶56

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:52800 WP No. 7118 of 2022

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

clear from the sketch produced at Annexure-F wherein site belonging to the petitioner is being acquired for construction of Apartments by the respondent-Board. It is also forthcoming from the reply made by the respondentBoard to the Legal Notice issued by the petitioner at Annexure-N wherein it is stated as follows:

¶59

“That, your client cannot demand alternative site with my client in lieu of the notification proceedings. At best your client is entitle for compensation.”

¶60

It is also forthcoming from the letter dated 27.07.2021 (Annexure-R) addressed by respondent No.3 to respondent No.5 wherein the name of the petitioner is reflected insofar as acquisition of the property to an extent of 1540 Sq.Ft. belonging to the petitioner. Though learned counsel representing the respondent-Board sought to justify the fact that the property belonging to the petitioner is not acquired and a joint survey is to be made as well as identification of the property in question has to be made, however, the said aspect cannot be accepted in

¶61

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:52800 WP No. 7118 of 2022

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

view of the admission made by respondent-Board in their reply dated 15.06.2018 (Annexure-N) wherein it was stated that the petitioner cannot seek alternative site, however, the petitioner is entitled for compensation.

¶64

In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled for compensation in view of the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of VIDYA DEVI

¶65

v/s STATE OF HIMCHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2020)2 SCC 569 wherein it is held that, a right to property is to be construed as a human right, while considering the case of the claimants as to payment of compensation is concerned.

¶66

In that view of the matter, denial of compensation by respondent-authorities is contrary to the declaration of law made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of VIDYA DEVI (supra). Therefore, I pass the following:

¶67