IN THE HIGH COURT of KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Sri B.R.Muralidhar, S/O B.V.Rathan Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Karnataka By The Secretary Department Of Housing - Respondents
Writ Petition No.22611 of 2005, Writ Petition No.20955 of 2005, Writ Petition No.21192 of 2005
Decided On : 02-06-2025
ORDER :
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Batch of these petitions call in question a notification declaring the subject properties in these petitions to be a slum under the provisions of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1973 (‘the Act’ for short).
2. Heard Sri M Shivaprakash, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P.No.22611 of 2005; Sri Abhinav Ramanand, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P.No.20955 of 2005; Sri L.M. Chidanandayya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.21192 of 2005, Sri K.S. Rahul Cariappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents/State and Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the Board.
3. Before embarking upon consideration of the issue on its merit, I deem it appropriate to notice the protagonists in the case at hand. The petitioner in W.P.No.21192 of 2005 is M/s Chandra Spinning & Weaving Mills Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’ for short); Respondents 1 and 2 are the State in the Department of Housing and Respondent No.3 is the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board. In Writ Petition No.20955 of 2005 the petitioner is an individual land owner and the respondents are the same. Writ Petition No.22611 of 2005 is again by a land owner and the respondents are the same.
4. Facts, in brief, which are germane are as follows:
For convenience, the facts obtaining in W.P.No.21192 of 2005 are considered. In the year 1942 the Managing Director of the petitioner/ Company D.R. Madhava Krishnaiah purchases lands in Site No.86 and 87 of Sy.No.65, Gavipura Village. The said lands are then transferred to the company by the Managing Director through a registered Sale Deed dated 30-08-1956. The Site Nos.86 and 87 are subsequently renumbered as Site Nos.76, 77 and 78 on being included within the Corporation limits of Bangalore City. On 30-08-1956 the petitioner also purchases land in Sy.No.16 measuring 22 guntas situated in Karithimmenahalli in terms of a registered sale deed. Likewise, lands in Sy.No.65/2 measuring 1 acre and 10 guntas and another 14 guntas in Gavipura Village, Bangalore was purchased in public auction in Execution proceedings in Execution Case No.35 of 1964. Thus, the petitioner/Company held the aforesaid lands.
5. On 11-12-1974 the Government of Karnataka issues a notification declaring Sy.Nos. 63, 64, 65, 66 then known as Venkataraman Huts, Gavipuram Village as a slum area under Section 3(1) of the Act. The moment notification comes to be issued, one of the land owner of the lands proposed to be acquired on such declaration to be a slum, called in question the said notification dated 11-12-1974 in Writ Petition No.2405 of 1975. This Court, in terms of its order dated 27-08-1976 allowed the petition, quashed the notification insofar as it related to the land belonging to the petitioner therein, on the ground that the petitioner was not heard while issuing the notification, which would mean that no preliminary notification was issued. The petitioner herein also sings the same swan song.
6. After compliance with the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2405 of 1975, a notification again comes to be issued on 16-06-1979 declaring 2 acres and 20 guntas of land in Sy.Nos. 64 and 65 of Gavipura Village as a slum area. Another notification comes to be issued on 06-10-1979 declaring other survey numbers in Venkataraman Huts or Kudlimath Slum as a slum area. On 22-02-1980 comes another notification declaring 6 acres and 30 guntas to be acquired under Section 17 of the Act and called for objections from all the stake holders. This comes to be challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.2331 of 1981, which comes to be allowed on the same ground of want of opportunity.
7. After the order passed by this Court, the respondent/Board issues a tender notification calling for tender for construction of 720 tenements at Laggere Village, Nandini Layout, Bengaluru for rehabilitation of slum dwellers of Venkataraman Huts/Kudlimath



GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. B.R. MURALIDHAR
KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD v. RAMAPRIYA HOTELS (P) LIMITED
JAGADISH v. STATE 0F KARNATAKA
The court held that long delays in land acquisition proceedings violate constitutional rights, rendering acquisition invalid, and declared compensation provisions under Section 20 unconstitutional fo....
The judgment emphasizes that lapsing provision under Section 11A does not apply to acquisitions made by Nagpur Improvement Trust under NIT Act, while also highlighting entitlement to compensation for....
The right to property under Article 300A must be upheld through due legal processes; unlawful dispossession by state authorities mandates compensation per statutory requirements.
Compulsory acquisition of land – If any individual is to be divested or deprived of said right by State, it ought not be done without giving compensation in accordance with law for land so acquired f....
The court ruled that the State Land Acquisition Officer cannot shift the date for determining compensation; only higher courts possess that authority under Articles 32/142 of the Constitution.
The acquisition process must comply with statutory provisions of timely final notification and personal hearing, failure of which undermines legal validity.
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.