IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH RP NO.325/2015 C/W RP NO.1041/2013 AND RP NOs.1042-1050/2013 IN WP NO.8117/2006 (GM-RES) RP NO.325/2015 BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD NO.55, "ABHAYA COMPLEX"
3RD FLOOR, RISALDAR STREET SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 560 020 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI:M S PARTHASARATHI & SRI:M P SRIKANTH, ADV) AND:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH MEMORIAL ROAD BANGALORE BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 002 BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR METRO RAILWAY BMTC COMPLEX KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027 4. M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION INDIAN OIL BHAVAN NO.29, P.KALINGA RAO ROAD MISSION ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027 5. M/S. SRI KALABYRAVAR SERVICE STATION BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI N.V. JAYARAM S/O SRI VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.686, KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT BANASHANKARI III STAGE BANGALORE - 560 085 6. M/S. EAST Court CONSTRUCTION LIMITED NO.4, MORRES ROAD CHENNAI - 600 006 7. ABHAYA A FEDERATION/ESTABLISHMENT/ INSTITUTION OF WARD-54 SRINIVASANAGARA NO.126/47, FLAT NO.3 I FLOOR, TEMPLE VIEW APARTMENT OPP: MANJUNATHA TEMPLE 2ND MAIN ROAD, SBM COLONY BANGALORE - 560 050 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENTS SRI Y. DAMODARA ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI:I G GACHCHINAMATH, ADV FOR R2, SRIYUTHS:B K SRIDHAR & B R EKALAVYA, ADV FOR R4, SRI:G A K GOWDA, ADV FOR R7, R-1,3,5 & 6 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 13/04/2011 PASSED IN WP NO.8117/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
RP NO.1041/2013 & RP NOs.1042-1050/2013 BETWEEN:
1. SMT P M MARGARAT W/O LATE G DHANRAJ AGED 41 YEARS NO 200 4TH CROSS, CHAMUNDINAGAR SLUM AREA BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE 560085 2. SRI PERUMAL S/O SAPRAYAN AGED 39 YEARS NO 295, 8TH CROSS CHAMUNDINAGAR SLUM AREA BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE 560 085 3. SMT D RATHNA W/O DEVENDRA AGED 38 YEARS NO 311 9TH CROSS CHAMUNDINAGAR SLUM AREA BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE 560085 4. SMT CHELUVAMMA W/O VENKATARAMANA SHETTY AGED 45 YEARS NO 203, 4TH CROSS CHAMUNDINAGAR SLUM AREA BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE 560085 5. SMT MANGALA W/O PUTTASWAMY AGED 32 YEARS NO 186, 4TH CROSS CHAMUNDINAGAR SLUM AREA BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE 560085 6. SRI NAGARAJ S/O NAGAPPA AGED 32 YEARS NO 186, 4TH CROSS CHAMUNDINAGAR SLUM AREA BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE 560085 7. SMT RUKMINI W/O DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS NO 125, 3RD CROSS CHAMUNDINAGAR SLUM AREA BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE 560085 8. SMT BHAGYAMMA W/O SHIVA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS NO 365, 12TH CROSS CHAMUNDINAGAR SLUM AREA B.S.K 3RD STAGE BANGALORE 560085 9. SMT RADHAKRISHNA S/O GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS NO 255, 6TH CROSS CHAMUNDINAGAR SLUM AREA B.S.K 3RD STAGE BANGALORE 560 085 10. SMT JAYAMMA W/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS NO 367, 11TH CROSS CHAMUNDINAGAR SLUM AREA BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE 560085 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI:K N LINGARAJU & SRI:K B OMKAR, ADVS) AND:
1. SRI ABHAYA A FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION/ESTABLISHMENT/INSTITUTION OF WARD 54, SRINIVASANAGARA NO 126/47, FLAT NO 3, I FLOOR TEMPLE VIEW APARTMENTS OPP MANJUNATHA TEMPLE 2ND MAIN ROAD, S.B.M COLONY BANGALORE 560 050 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI Y DAMODARA 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE 560002 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 4. THE KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD RESHILDAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE 50 020 REPRESNTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR METRO RAILWAY BMTC COMPLEX KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD BANGALORE 560 027 6. M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., INDIAN OIL BHAVAN REP BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER NO 29, P KALINGA RAO ROAD MISSION ROAD BANGALORE 560027 7. M/S. SRI KALABYRAVAR SERVICE STATION BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI N V JAYARAM S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO 686, KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE 560085 8. M/S. EAST COAST CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES LTD., REP BY TIS MANAGING DIRECTOR NO 4, MORRES ROAD CHENNAI 600 006 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI:G A K GOWDA, ADV FOR R1, SRI:M N RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADV FOR R2, SRI:I G GACHCHINAMATH, ADV FOR R3, SRI:M P SRIKANTH, ADV FOR R4, R-5,6,7 & 8 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 13/04/2011 PASSED IN W.P.NO.8117/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
THESE REVIEW PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, BOPANNA, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER IN RP NO.1041/2013 & 1042-1050/2013 These review petitions are filed seeking to review of the order dated 13.04.2011 passed in WP No.8117/2006.
2. Since there is a delay of 560 days in filing the petitions, an application in IA.I/2014 is filed seeking for condonation of delay. The petitioners therein not being parties to the original proceedings have filed IA.I/2015 seeking permission to prosecute the petitions. Permission sought for is granted.
3. While taking note of the delay as explained in the application seeking condonation of delay and the objections filed by the respondents contending that the delay has not been explained in an appropriate manner, what is necessary to be taken note is that the review petitioners had initially filed W.P.Nos.48038-48047/2012 as the original proceedings seeking that the order dated 13.04.2011 passed in WP No.8117/2006 be reviewed as they were not made parties but their right was affected. It is under that circumstance, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court through the order dated 26.11.2013 permitted the petitioners to convert the writ petitions into review petitions, which accordingly has been converted and these review petitions are registered.
4. If that be the position, when we notice that the petitioners herein were before this Court as the writ petitioners at the first instance wherein a consideration in any event would have been made but have thereafter converted the same as review petitions and further being the residents of slum which is the subject matter which arose for consideration in WP No.8117/2006, the case as put forth by them is required to be ultimately adjudicated. Therefore, in that circumstance, the delay as explained would indicate that sufficient cause is made out for this Court to accept the same and condone the delay in filing these petitions.
5. Accordingly, the delay of 560 days in filing the petitions is condoned.
6. In the instant petitions, the petitioners are before this Court contending that this Court while passing the order dated 13.04.2011 did not have the benefit of the contentions, which are to be urged by the petitioners herein and in that view, it is contended that if the order passed without such consideration is implemented, the persons who would ultimately be affected are the petitioners herein. Claiming such right, the petitioners have sought to rely on the annexures which are produced along with the petitions to indicate that the slum existed therein and in the houses constructed therein, the petitioners are residing.
7. As noticed, in the original order though respondents No.1 to 3 have indicated that the houses would be demolished and construction would be put up therein, such undertaking which was accepted by this Court is without reference to the right as sought to be claimed by the petitioners herein being the residents of this slum. Therefore, in that circumstances, prima facie, when the documents, more particularly, at Annexure-B series to the petitions indicate that the review petitioners are the residents therein, they are necessary to be provided an opportunity to put forth their contention in the original writ petition.
8. If that be the position, the order dated 13.04.2011 passed in WP No.8117/2006 is liable to be reviewed and recalled and WP No.8117/2006 is to be restored to the file so as to provide an opportunity to the review petitioners herein to have themselves impleaded in the said writ petition to enable them to put forth their contention before this Court to consider as to whether the undertaking given by respondents No.1 to 3 as had been originally done could be accepted by this Court, if the right as put forth by the review petitioners is also taken into consideration. Therefore, without adverting to the rival contentions with regard to the total extent of the property involved, the portion which was notified and the construction existing therein in the instant review, the same is left open to be considered in writ petition wherein appropriate pleadings be completed.
9. In that view of the matter, the order dated 13.04.2011 in WP No.8117/20106 is recalled. WP No.8117/2006 is restored to the file of this Court for fresh consideration. The petitioners herein are granted liberty to file appropriate application seeking impleadment in the said proceedings. The review petition Nos. 1041/2013 and 1042-1050/2013 are allowed.
In terms of the above, the applications, IA.3/2014 filed for stay and IA.1/2015 for permission to prosecute stands disposed of.
IN RP NO.325/2015 The instant review petition is filed by the petitioner who is respondent No.3 in WP No.8117/2006. There is a delay of 1446 days in filing the review petition. The respondent on being notified has filed their objections statement. Though the rival contentions are urged herein, the details of the same need not be discussed inasmuch as this Court while disposing of RP No.1041/2013 and RP Nos.1042-1050/2013 has already recalled the order dated 13.04.2011 and restored the WP No.8117/2006 to the file of this Court.
In that view of the matter, the same benefit is extended herein. Accordingly, the delay of 1446 days in filing the petition is condoned. IA.1/2015 is allowed.
The review petition is disposed of in terms of the order in RP No.1041/2013 and RP Nos.1042-1050/2013 and the contention on merits to be put forth are left open to be considered in the writ petition.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE *bgn/-