SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 687

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri M.Shivaprakash, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S., Hcgp, Sri B.B.Patil, Advocate

The court held that long delays in land acquisition proceedings violate constitutional rights, rendering acquisition invalid, and declared compensation provisions under Section 20 unconstitutional for being arbitrary.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 - Sections 3, 11, 17, and 20 - Notification declaring certain lands as slum areas challenged on grounds of excessive delay and unconstitutionality of compensation provisions - The court found the final notification issued after 23 years from preliminary notification to be untenable due to lack of reasonable timeliness in acquisition, citing case law affirming that statutory powers must be exercised within a reasonable time frame. (Paras 10-19)

(B) Constitutional Law - Article 300A - Right to property and its theories of compensation - The court ruled that the provisions of compensation declaring 300 times the property tax were arbitrary and unconstitutional, as they lacked any justification of being 'just and reasonable' under prevailing regulations. The delay was critical in undermining the purpose of the acquisition. (Paras 12-19)

Facts of the case:
The petitions arose from a long-standing dispute regarding the declaration of certain properties as slum areas under the 1973 Act. The notifications for acquisition began in 1982, but stakeholders faced rejection of their objections after decades, culminating in a final notification in 2005. The petitioners argued substantial delays had rendered the process null and void.

Findings of Court:
The final notification issued was quashed due to the lack of timely acquisition procedures and the unconstitutionality of compensation prescribed under Section 20.

Issues: The court addressed whether the delay in issuing the final notification rendered it invalid and whether the provisions under Section 20 upheld constitutionality.

Ratio Decidendi: The delay in reaching the final notification violated both statutory expectations and constitutional rights, deeming the acquisition proceedings as having lapsed. The compensation provision was also ruled unconstitutional for arbitrary compensation figures.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; notification quashed.

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














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top