Writ Petition No. 42743 of 2012 (PIL-LB-BMP), Writ Petition Nos. 29393-29531 of 2013, Writ Petition Nos. 46496-46718 of 2014 and C/W Review Petition No. 265 of 2013. Case: Shantha Mary Vs State of Karnataka. High Court of Karnataka (India)

Judgment:

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.

1. W.P. Nos. 42743/2012, 29393-29531/2013 and 46496-46718/2014 are filed by those persons, who are residing in the temporary make-shift tin sheds, erected by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('B.B.M.P.' for short) at Vivekanagar, Bangalore. The petitioners' case in brief is that the Bangalore City Corporation, the predecessor of B.B.M.P., formulated a scheme for the construction of 1512 flats in 42 blocks of its land measuring 22 acres in Koramangala, Bangalore for the purpose of providing shelter to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society in 1983-84. On the completion of their construction in 1993-94, the B.B.M.P. issued the letters of allotment and executed lease-cum-sale agreements in respect of individual flats to the respective allottees. Due to sub-standard construction, one after the other block started collapsing. Majority of the original allottees gave up their possession through the power of attorney, etc. Out of 1512 tenements, only a few numbering about 230 were occupied by the original allottees. Owing to poverty, the petitioners continued to live in the EWS quarters, even when they were unfit for human occupation. The B.B.M.P. demolished the remaining flats and shifted the petitioners and other actual occupants to the tin sheds erected on the same land with the promise that they would be provided with the houses on the same land to be constructed either by B.B.M.P. itself or through a joint venture project.

2. The petitioners have produced the identity cards issued by B.B.M.P. in Annexure-A series, ration cards in Annexure-B series and election identity cards in Annexure-C series to evidence their possession of EWS quarters.

3. The B.B.M.P. initially passed the resolution on 31.5.2004 to the effect that the residential tenements would be reconstructed and given to the original allottees, who were displaced and rendered homeless on account of demolition of dilapidated EWS quarters. Subsequently, the actual occupants raised the protest, as they are the real displaced persons. Taking note of the grievance of the actual occupants, the B.B.M.P. modified its earlier resolution, dated 31.5.2004 by passing the resolution on 28.6.2005 providing for re-settlement of those, who were evicted from EWS quarters. It calls for identifying present residents therein, even if they are not the original allottees for the purpose of allotting the flats in the residential complex. On 29.7.2005 it passed another resolution for evicting the residents from the dilapidated EWS quarters as a precautionary measure. It also provides for the allotment of flats to 1512 original allottees once the residential complex is constructed. Further, it provides for the construction of the residential complex on the remaining part of the land in question for allotting flats to the erstwhile residents (tenants).

4. Some of the original allottees filed W.P. No. 45915/2011, 'seeking inter alia, a direction to the Government to allocate funds for expeditiously starting reconstruction of the demolished EWS quarters. The said proceedings culminated in the settlement amongst the petitioners in the said case, B.B.M.P. and M/s. Maverick Holding & Investments Pvt. Ltd. The said settlement inter alia provides for building a residential complex for allotting the flats therein to the original allottees and for putting up a commercial complex for the benefit of said property developer. In the wake of the said arrangement, the Division Bench held that there will be no justification for any person to remain on the present site beyond 8.10.2012.

5. The petitioners in the instant case have approached this Court contending that the original allottees are not the only beneficiaries of the rehabilitation project. As the parties in W.P. No. 45915/2011 have willfully suppressed the facts relating to resolutions of B.B.M.P. to confer the benefits upon the actual residents of EWS quarters, the order passed in the said writ petition (W.P. No. 45915/2011) is not binding upon the petitioners in the present case. The prayers in this writ petition read as follows:-

   a) Wherefore it is prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to grant appropriate order in the nature of a writ of declaration that the Order dated 24th August, 2012 passed in WP No. 45915/2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore is not binding on the petitioners; and

   (ai) Issue writ of certiorari to quash the resolution of the BBMP vide No. 13 (306) dated 30.10.2006 enclosed as Annexure-V, and consequently quash the Concession Agreement dated 12.1.2012 as per Annexure-AD.

   (aii) Issue writ of certiorari to quash the Government Order No. NAAAEE 261 MNG 2006 Bangalore dated 26.9.2008 enclosed as Annexure-Z.

   (aiii) Issue writ of mandamus to Respondent No. 1 and 2 to construct shelters in the schedule property for the benefit of the Petitioners and persons similarly situated in terms of the resolution dated 29.7.2005 vide Subject No. 1/05-06 produced as Annexure-J.

   b) Without prejudice to what is stated above this Honourable Court be pleased to direct the Respondent no. 2 to extend the benefits of re-allotment to the Petitioners and other persons who have been given certificates of residence by the B.B.M.P. enclosed as Annexure A series.

   c) Without prejudice to what is stated above, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 to make adequate provisions for shelter to the Petitioners, and till such measures are made, to ensure that they are adequately rehabilitated as per the provisions of the Resettlement & Rehabilitation Policy.

   d) Pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.

6. R.P. No. 265/2013 is filed by eight persons, whose grievance is that though they were not made parties to W.P. No. 45915/2011, they have suffered adverse consequences, as a result of passing the final order, dated 24.8.2012 in the said petition. The review petitioners claim that they are the erstwhile residents of tin sheds erected by B.B.M.P. It is their case that the original allottees did not make necessary payments and did not comply with the conditions of lease-cum-sale agreement.

7. Sri Sunil Dutt Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the second respondent-B.B.M.P. has passed the resolution on 28.06.2005 for accommodating both the original allottees and occupants like petitioners in the residential complex to be constructed. Subsequently, on 29.07.2005, the B.B.M.P. has passed the resolution modifying the earlier resolution, dated 28.06.2005, providing for accommodating the occupants like petitioners by putting up a residential complex in the remaining portion of the land in question. The B.B.M.P. thereafter conducted a survey and identified the residents of the flats on 14.11.2003 and found that there were about 1.101 tenants. Learned counsel submits that the B.B.M.P. has issued identity cards to the petitioners on 15.06.2007.

8. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid resolutions are not rescinded. The petitioners have the legitimate expectation that the B.B.M.P. would honour its resolutions by accommodating the petitioners in...