IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
H.P.SANDESH, J.
Ningappa s/o. Mallappa Walikar @ Talwar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No.101473 of 2023 (GM-SLUM) C/W Writ Petition No. 104671 of 2023 (GM-SLUM)
Decided on : 27-09-2024
Slum - Land Acquisition - Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 - Sections 3, 17, 20 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding the declaration of slum areas and the process of land acquisition, emphasizing that once possession is taken, the government cannot withdraw from acquisition without due process and compensation must be paid.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the de-notification of land declared as slum area under the Karnataka Slum Areas Act, arguing that the government acted arbitrarily and without compensation after taking possession of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the government had unlawfully de-notified the land after taking possession and failed to pay compensation, violating the petitioners' rights under the Slum Act and the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the government could de-notify land after taking possession and whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: Once possession is taken under the Slum Act, the government cannot withdraw from acquisition without following due process and must compensate the landowners.
Result: Both writ petitions are allowed, and the government is directed to pay compensation to the petitioners.
ORDER :
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH)
1. Heard the petitioners’ counsel and also the learned AAG appearing for the respondents.
2. The prayer sought in Writ Petition No.101473/2023 is to issue it in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification bearing No.VaE/113/SBM2020 Bengaluru dated 11.04.2022 issued by respondent No.1 insofar as the petitioner is concerned in respect of the land bearing Survey No.37/2 vide Annexure-K and also issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take further steps pursuant to the notification dated 16.11.2018 bearing No.VaE-134- KoME-2018 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-E and grant such other reliefs as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
3. The petitioners in writ petition No.104671/2023 prayed this Court to quash the impugned notification bearing No. VaE113 SBM 2020, Bengaluru, date 11.04.2022 vide Annexure-L issued by respondent No.1; to issue writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned report bearing No.Ashraya/VeVa-03/2021-22, dated 23.03.2022 vide Annexure-H submitted by the respondent No.6 Assistant Commissioner; to issue writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned report bearing No.RP-2/2020, dated 25.03.2022 vide Annexure-J submitted by the respondent No.5 Deputy Commissioner of Dharwad; so also sought for writ of mandamus to issue appropriate directions to respondents No.1, 3 to 7 to quantify and pay compensation under Section 20 of the Slum Act in respect of 06 acres 18 guntas 15 annas in Sy.No.37/3A of Nekar Nagar, Ayodhya village (V) at the earliest; and alternatively to direct the respondents No.1, 3 to 7 to pay damages and relocate all the slum dwellers from 06 acres 18 guntas 15 annas in Sy.No.37/3A of Nekar Nagar, Ayodhya village (V) to any the Government land and further direct the Respondents to clear all the structures or buildings made by them and hand over vacant possession of the aforesaid land to the petitioners and grant such other relief as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
4. The factual Matrix of the case in W.P.No.101473/2023 is that, respondent No.2 herein issued a notification under Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (‘the Slum Act’, for short) notifying the land belonging to the petitioner bearing R.S.No.37/2B measuring 1 Acre 26 Guntas. The said notification was issued without even hearing the petitioners. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued allotment letter and possession certificate to about 457 families. The said allotees have put up construction and residing in the said land since last 20 years. The notification is produced as Annexure-A. It is also the case of the petitioner that, they submitted a representation to the respondents seeking compensation for the notified land as per the provisions of Slum Act even in 2015-16, but no action was taken and list of the persons/allottees is produced as Annexure-B. It is also contended that, as against the inaction on the part of the respondents, petitioners preferred the Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.103081/2016 seeking writ of mandamus to consider the representation for payment of compensation. The said writ petition came to be allowed with a direction to consider the representation for payment of compensation as per Annexure-C. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, respondent No.2 issued preliminary notification for acquisition of subject lands. Thereafter, respondents No.2 and 3 issued several recommendations to the respondent No.1 seeking issuance of final notification and payment of compensation on 16.11.2018. Respondent No.2 de-notified the entire acquisition proceedings with a view to evade payment of compensation to the land losers on 11.04.2022 and the same is produced as Annexure-K. It is also the contention that respondent No.2 also recommended not to de-notifying the same and there is no such provision under the Slum Act and if the same is de- notified, the persons who are in po
K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd and others Vs State of Karnataka and another reported in AIR 2011 SC 3430
Lt.Governor of H.P. Vs. Avinash Sharma reported in (1970) 2 SCC 149
Satetendra Parasad Jain Vs. State of UP and Others reported in (1993) 4 SCC 369
Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt.Ltd Vs. State of Harayana and another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656
The Deputy Commissioner and Collector
The State of Karnataka and another Vs. B.R Muralidhar reported in (2022) 10 SCR 448
The government cannot de-notify land after possession is taken under the Slum Act without due process and must provide compensation to landowners.
De-notification of lands acquired under the Slum Act without compensation is illegal under constitutional law, highlighting the state's obligation to ensure basic living standards and property rights....
Point of law: Co operative society - Encroachment of Land - Right to fair compensation - Concept of equity, justice and good conscience is part of Indian law and can be applied by the Courts in certa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once land is acquired by the State Government under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, it vests absolutely in the State Government free from all ....
The authority to withdraw land acquisition ceases once possession is taken, necessitating fair hearing protections.
The lack of physical possession and non-payment of compensation void acquisitions under urban land ceiling laws, entitling landowners to compensation under newer frameworks.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.