Writ Petition No. 49 of 2014 (GM-SLUM). Case: M.T. Chandrashekar and Anr. Vs State of Karnataka and Ors.. High Court of Karnataka (India)

Case NumberWrit Petition No. 49 of 2014 (GM-SLUM)
CounselFor Appellant: Sri B.K. Manjunath, Advocate and For Respondents: Sri Vijayakumar A. Patil, High Court Government Pleader and Sri B. Ramaswamy Iyengar, Advocate
JudgesA.S. Bopanna, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure
Citation2014 (2) KarLJ 211
Judgement DateJanuary 22, 2014
CourtHigh Court of Karnataka (India)


A.S. Bopanna, J., (At Bangalore)

  1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking that the respondents 1 and 2 be directed to publish the notification under Section 17 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners and direct the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners in respect of the same. The fact that the petitioners are the owners of the Sand bearing Sy. Nos. 17/1A and 1B situate at Kelagote Extension, Chitradurga City and in the said lands, slum had developed is not seriously in dispute. In respect of the said lands and the other lands, a notification under Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 has been issued and the same has attained finality. The petitioners therefore contend that the property which rightfully belongs to the petitioners is now declared as a slum area and is denied the benefit of the said property. Since, in such circumstance the right of the petitioners to evict the persons also would be jeopardised, the petitioners contend that the first respondent should be directed to issue a notification for acquiring the said land as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act.

  2. The petitioners have also relied on the order dated 21-8-2007 passed in W.P. No. 3537 of 2005, wherein similarly situated persons had approached this Court and this Court had disposed of the petition directing the respondents to consider the representations which had been made by the petitioners therein. Therefore, the petitioners are also seeking for a similar treatment in terms of the order passed in W.P. No. 3537 of 2005.

  3. Having perused these aspects of the matter, what is necessary to be outlined at the outset is that the first respondent certainly could look into all these aspects and then come to a conclusion on the request that is...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT