IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.29570/2016 (LB UC) BETWEEN DR. AMBEDKAR SC/ST SLUM DEVELOPMENT SEVA SANGHA (R) NO.85, ANJANAPPA GARDEN, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 018, REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY, K DAVID S/O KOVIL PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
(BY SRI JAGADEESH D C, ADV.) AND R1 TO R3 DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED.23.11.2018.
4. THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.55, RESALDAR ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-560 020.
5. B C CHANNAREDDY, S/O LATE BAJJA REDDY @ BAJJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.84, 6TH MAIN, 36TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, ... PETITIONER JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011.
6. SMT. RADHA, W/O SHANMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.64, 3RD CROSS, ANJANAPPA GARDEN, NEW LAYOUT, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560018.
... RESPONDENTS [R6 IMPLEADED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 23.11.2018) (BY SRI SATHISHA, ADV. FOR R4, SRI T.N.VISHWANATHA, ADV. FOR R6, NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O R5.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 TO SEE THAT THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY HIM AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-D, E, F ARE IMPLEMENTED FORTHWITH IN A LETTER AND SPRIT THEREBY PREVENTING THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE UNAUTHORISED PERSONS IN THE LAND RESERVED FOR PROVIDING CIVIC AMENTITIES TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE SLUM AREA CALLED ANJANAPPA GARDEN, IN SY NO.130 & 131 OF LAND MEASURING 2 ACRES 27.05 GUNTAS (10875.00 SQ MTRS) SITUATED AT MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE WITHIN THE BBMP LIMIT ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent-Board and the 6th respondent who claims to have purchased a piece of land from the 5th respondent who admittedly is the owner of the property.
2. A few facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition and consideration of the contentions are that, the land bearing Survey No.130 and 131 of Anjanappa Garden, Mysore Road, Bengaluru came to be declared as a Slum, by a notification dated 12.07.1979 issued under Section 3 of The Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’). The said notification was questioned in W.P. No.3688/2008 by the 5th respondent herein and the said writ petition came to be rejected by this court on the grounds that it involved determination of seriously disputed facts and that it is open for the petitioner-the 5th respondent herein, to work-out his rights in a properly constituted suit if permissible under law. Notice is not ordered by this court to the 5th respondent.
3. The petitioner claims to be an Association of the residents of Anjanappa Garden. The certificate of registration is produced as Annexure-A and the same would reveal that the petitioner came into existence in 2005. Though it claims to be an Association of the residents, no material is placed before the court to demonstrate as to who are its members and as to whether the members are registered under Section 4 of the Act or recognized as beneficiaries under the Act.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-Board would submit that only a declaration under Section 3 of the Act has been issued and no final notification as required under Section 17 of the Act is issued. He would submit that this is the position, obtaining as on today and that the residents therein are all unauthorized occupants and no order under Section 4 of the Act has been passed, thereby registering any of the buildings therein.
5. He would further submit that earlier one person by name Radha had in fact instituted a civil suit, which was defended by the Board and the same came to be rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of the court to Annexures-E and F and to contend that the land, which he alleges is now being unauthorizedly developed, is a land reserved for providing a civic amenity to the residents.
7. On perusal of Annexure-D it is apparent that the Sangha has made a request by its representation dated 20.04.2016 to reserve the land for forming civic amenity site. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent-Board would submit that no proceedings have been taken to declare or reserve the lands in a part of the area as a civic amenity site.
8. Learned counsel would further place reliance on Annexures-E and F to submit that despite directions from the Board no action has been taken. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would counter the said argument and contend that the very Annexures are proof enough of the fact that the Board has been conducting itself effectively and discharging its functions in accordance with the Act.
9. Be that as it may, petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. For the petitioner to be entitled for a mandamus as prayed for, primarily, the petitioner requires to demonstrate a right in him or her. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Sangha. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to demonstrate as to how the rights of the Sangha are being curtailed or denied or violated. That being so and no corresponding duty being cast on the respondent, the petitioner has no right to seek for issuance of a mandamus. Hence, the petition must necessarily fail.
Hence, petition stands dismissed.
No costs.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE