A. M. KHANWILKAR, SANJIV KHANNA
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
B. R. Muralidhar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
In these appeals, the subject matter is the notification dated 23.6.2005 bearing No. HD 34 KOMAME 2004, Bangalore issued under Section 17 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 [for short, 'the 1973 Act'] by the Housing Department of the State of Karnataka and the constitutional validity of Section 20 of the 1973 Act. The persons aggrieved by the issue of the impugned notification dated 23.6.2005 had filed Writ Petition No.22611 of 2005 [filed by B.R. Muralidhar, respondent No.1 in Civil Appeal No.1966 of 2013], Writ Petition No.20955 of 2005 [filed by V. Balasubramanya @ Balender Venkta, respondent No.3 in Civil Appeal No.1966 of 2013] and Writ Petition No.21192 of 2005 (GM-Slum) [filed by M/s. Chandra Spinning and Weaving Mills Private Limited, respondent No.4 in Civil Appeal No.1966 of 2013 and also appellant in the companion appeal i.e., Civil Appeal No..of 2022 @ S.L.P. (C) No.18942 of 2013] before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore [for short, 'the High Court'].
2. The challenge to the stated notification was twofold. The first is that the impugned notification was issued without adequately considering the objections
Rajiv Sarin & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 708 [Para 11] – Referred
State of Karnataka & Anr., etc. v. Ranganatha Reddy & Anr., etc.
Deputy Commissioner and Collector, Kamrup & Ors. v. Durganath Sarma
K.T. Plantation Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Karnataka
Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India & Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 166 [Para 11] – Referred
Property Owners’ Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
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.