Ikkalakki Ramalingegowda vs State Of Karnataka on 19 September, 2025

[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ikkalakki Ramalingegowda vs State Of Karnataka on 19 September, 2025

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

RESERVED ON : 13.06.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 19.09.2025 R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION NO.58187 OF 2018 (GM - SLUM)

C/W

REVIEW PETITION NO.387 OF 2021

IN WRIT PETITION NO.58187 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

1. IKKALAKKI RAMALINGEGOWDA
S/O LATE IKKALAKKI JAVAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
4TH CROSS, HOSAHALLI
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

2. SRI PAPANNA
S/O KONA HEGGADE CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
SATANUR, MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

3. SRI PUTTEGOWDA
S/O LATE BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
CHIKKA MANDYA VILLAGE
2

MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

4. SRI T.L.MANCHEGOWDA
S/O LATE T.LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
TAVAREKERE
MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

5. SRI M.B.RAMESH
S/O LATE BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
PRINCIPAL
SRI SHARADA INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE,
3RD CROSS, VIDYANAGAR
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

6. SRI JAVAREGOWDA
S/O NATHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
KONANAHALLI VILLAGE
MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

7. SRI G.S.VENKATESH
S/O LATE SHIVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
GOPALAPURA, MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

8. SRI H.L.SWAMY
S/O LATE M.LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
NO.1620, HOSAHALLI
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI R.V.S.NAIK, SR.ADVOCATE A/W.,
3

SRI MAHESH R.UPPIN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401.

3. THE KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.55, RISALDAR STREET
SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 020
BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
THE KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.2ND DIVISION, MYSURU - 570 001.

5. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
THE KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD
SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA - 571 401.

6. SRI KALIKAMBA SEVA SAMITHI (REGD.)
MANDYA CITY, MANDYA - 571 401
BY ITS SECRETARY.

7. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DISTRICT PLANNING AUTHORITY
MANDYA - 571 401.
... RESPONDENTS
4

(BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1, R2 AND R7;
SRI M.P.SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3, R4 AND R5;
SRI ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-6;
SRI CLIFTON ROZARIO, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
APPLICANTS ON I.A.NO.1/23)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFIATION ISSUED BY THE R-2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BEARING NO.MUN(2) 116/2003-04 DATED 07.01.2013 PUBLISHED
IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 10.01.2013 AS PER ANNEXURE-K
AND THE ORDER DATED 20.3.2018 BEARING NO.MUN(2)
116/2003-04 ISSUED BY THE R-2 DEPUTY COMMISSIOENR
MARKED AS ANNEXURE-P IN SO FAR AS THE PEITIONER IS
CONCERNED AND ETC.,

IN REVIEW PETITION NO.387 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

SRI KALIKAMBA SEVA SAMITHI (REGD)
MANDYA CITY
MANYDA 571 401
BY ITS PRESIDENT.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI ANIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S.BUILDING
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
5

BENGLAURU - 560 001.

2. THE KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD
NO.65, RISALDAR STREET
SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 020
BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
THE KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD
NO.5, SUB-DIVISION
JAVA FACTORY ROAD
NEAR HIGHWAY CIRCLE
MYSURU CITY - 570 001.

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401.

5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., AGA FOR R1, R4 AND R5;
SRI M.P.SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 12/03/2013
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO. 3910/2006 (GM-
SLUM) AND ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 13.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
6

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioners, said to be devotees of Sree Kalikamba

Temple, are before this Court challenging acquisition proceedings

under the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act,

1973 ('the Act' for short). The companion review petition is

preferred by Sri Kalikamba Seva Samithi seeking review of the

order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition

No.3910 of 2006 which was filed seeking eviction of slum dwellers.

WRIT PETITION NO.58187 OF 2018:

2. Facts adumbrated are as follows: -

2.1. Before embarking upon consideration of facts, I deem it

appropriate to notice the protagonists in the lis. The petitioners are

said to be devotees of Sree Kalikamba Temple in Mandya. The 1st

respondent, the State; 2nd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner,

Mandya; 3rd respondent, the Karnataka Slum Development Board

('the Board' for short) and its officers' respondents 4 and 5; and the

6th respondent is Sree Kalikamba Seva Samithi. The story dates
7

back to 1940s. It is the averment in the petition that Sree

Kalikamba Temple comes into existence in 1940s over the land in

Sy.Nos. 843, 844 and 845 in the city of Mandya. As observed, the

petitioners 1 to 8 are said to be the devotees of the said Sree

Kalikamba Temple (for short 'the Temple'). Between 01-06-1961

and 06-06-1961 the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya is said to have

granted 19 guntas of land in Sy.No.843 and 14 guntas of land in

Sy.No.844 of Mandya village in favour of certain persons to be used

for non-agricultural purposes. The land is surrounding the Temple.

But, the katha was made in the name of the Temple, as it was

adjacent to the temple and coming within Mandya Municipality.

2.2. The management of the Temple later taken over by Sree

Kalikamba Seva Samithi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Temple

Samithi' for short). On 11-05-1979 a notification comes to be

issued under the Act declaring the slum areas in existence in

Mandya City to be cleared or refurbished. The land that was

surrounding the Temple was also notified. It appears, the

notification dated 11-05-1979 was said to be in error as only 20

guntas of land in Sy.No.845 was included in the notification and
8

Sy.Nos. 843 and 844 were omitted. Therefore, the Slum Board

initiated process of its rectification by way of several

communications between it and the Deputy Commissioner and

several spot inspections conducted pursuant to the notification

issued in the year 1979.

2.3. The story then gets fast forwarded to 2003. The Deputy

Commissioner communicates a letter observing that 20 houses

were allotted to eligible beneficiaries of Kalikamba slum area. In

turn the Temple Samithi communicates to the Chief Minister

requesting to clear the remaining 23 slum dwellers in the slum area

on the western side of the Temple and allot them houses

constructed in the Tank Bed, Mandya under the Ashraya Scheme.

The Board then communicates to the Deputy Commissioner

concerning the allotment of 80 houses constructed at the Tamil

Colony, Mandya for the occupants of Kalikamba slum dwellers after

the slum Board was asked to select the beneficiaries for such

movement. The Temple Samithi pursued the matter of shifting 23

slum dwellers of Kalikamba temple to the houses constructed in

Tamil Colony. A Member of Legislative Assembly also takes up the
9

issue and communicates to the Slum Board requesting to shift the

remaining 23 slum dwellers near the Temple to the houses of Slum

Board constructed in the Tamil colony. Nothing was done for close

to 24 months.

2.4. It is then the Temple Samithi approaches this Court in

Writ Petition No.3910 of 2006 seeking eviction/shifting of remaining

slum dwellers immediately to the houses constructed by the Slum

Board in Tamil Colony. This Court granted an order of status quo.

The process of shifting did not take place on account of status quo

order. Six years passed by. On 14-12-2012 the coordinate Bench

passed an order directing rehabilitation of identified 22 slum

dwellers to the building that was constructed for rehabilitation of

the families and filing an affidavit in that regard. The Commissioner

of Slum Board passed an order stating that demand applications to

be submitted to the Slum Board for rehabilitation of remaining slum

dwellers and to re-declare the area measuring 28½ guntas in

Sy.Nos. 843 and 844 as slum area under Section 3 of the Act and

post such declaration houses to be constructed for rehabilitating

slum dwellers.
10

2.5. In furtherance whereof, a preliminary notification comes

to be issued on 07-01-2013 notifying 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.

843 and 11½ guntas of land in Sy.No.844 totally measuring 28½

guntas in Mandya Village and lands in survey numbers situated

near Kalikamba Temple were to be declared as slum area. The

devotees of the Temple, the Temple Samithi and others filed their

objections to the preliminary notification objecting declaration of 20

guntas in Sy.Nos. 843 and 844, the property said to be belonging to

Kalikamba temple to be declared as a slum area and also requested

the remaining slum dwellers in the vicinity of the Temple to be

immediately shifted to Tamil colony. On 10-01-2023 a coordinate

Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.3910 of 2006 passes an

order stating that Slum Board, for the first time, submits that there

is an interim order of status quo in another petition i.e., Writ

Petition No.14537 of 2010 filed by the occupants of the building

constructed for rehabilitation of slum dweller and, therefore, it is

not possible to shift and rehabilitate 22 families. The issue

remained thus.
11

2.6. On 01-03-2013 a compromise-cum-gift deed is executed.

The Executive Engineer of the Slum Board who was authorized and

the President and Assistant Secretary of Kalikamba Samithi and one

Basavaraj of Kalikamba Slum Area Residents Union entered into a

compromise. The condition of compromise was that 20 guntas in

Sy.No.843 and 844 belonging to the Temple would be donated free

of cost to the Slum Board, on which the Slum Board would

construct houses for the slum dwellers who had consented to the

same and the said 20 guntas would be declared as a slum area in

the final notification. It was said that disputes would be resolved

by the said settlement deed. Noticing the fact of that settlement,

Writ Petition No.3910 of 2006 is disposed passing an order

accepting the compromise.

2.7. Five years thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner passes

an order rejecting petitioners' objections to the preliminary

notification and directed Mandya Planning Authority to issue a final

notification in pursuance of the preliminary notification. The order

was passed by the Deputy Commissioner relying on the

compromise deed that was entered into between the parties on 01-
12

03-2013. Thus, emerges a final notification on 26-03-2018

notifying 20 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.843 and 844 of Kalikamba

Temple as slum area. Aggrieved by the said final notification, the

petitioners/devotees of the temple are before this Court in the

subject petition. The management of the Temple Samithi is then

said to have passed an order to file a review petition seeking review

of the final order dated 12-03-2013 passed in Writ Petition No.3910

of 2006 contending that compromise had been completely

breached. It is, therefore, the Temple Samithi has preferred the

companion review petition after 8 years of closure of the writ

petition, contending that the order is an error apparent on the face

of the record and seeks review of the final order dated 12-03-2013.

It is, therefore, the two are connected which are taken up and

heard together.

3. Heard in W.P.No.58187 of 2018 Sri R.V.S. Naik, learned

senior counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri Mohammed Jaffar

Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for

respondents 1, 2 and 7; Sri M.P.Srikanth, learned counsel

appearing for respondents 3, 4 and 5; and Sri Anil Kumar, learned
13

counsel appearing for respondent No.6; Sri Clifton Rozario, learned

counsel appearing for impleading applicant; and in R.P.No.387 of

2021 Sri Anil Kumar S, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners; Sri K.S. Rahul Cariappa, learned Additional Government

Advocate appearing for respondents 1, 4 and 5 and

Sri M.P.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in writ

petition No.58187 of 2018 would contend that the action of the

Government of Karnataka is in violation of Article 300A of the

Constitution of India as right to property belonging to the Temple

cannot be taken away. The notifications both preliminary and final

under Section 3 of the Act are on their face illegal. The

petitioners/devotees and seven other villagers who are devotees of

the Temple had filed detailed objections against declaration of land

of the Temple as slum area. The compromise deed, on the strength

of which final notification is issued was not a lawful compromise, as

prior to entering into compromise, there was no resolution of the

Temple Samithi and no consent of general public. The Temple
14

Samithi is not the owner of the disputed land nor has any authority

to gift away freely the land of the Temple in favour of Slum Board.

The compromise deed was a fraud. It was entered into by coercion

and threats of leaders of slum dwellers. The Authorities have failed

to take into consideration the demand of devotees that slum

dwellers must be evicted from the surrounding areas of the Temple

and create a peaceful atmosphere, as slum surrounding the temple

would not create an healthy atmosphere for devotion in the temple.

5. The Temple Samithi which has preferred the review

petition 387 of 2021 would contend that the Temple Samithi was

represented by the Joint Secretary of the Temple who did not sign

the compromise deed. The settlement-cum-gift deed that was

titled is itself illegal and the Temple has no right to do so. The grant

of land in favour of Temple Samithi was conditional that the Samithi

shall construct and establish a Kalyana Mantapa on the land in

question. Above all, the submission of the Temple Samithi is that

the slum being adjacent to the Temple will affect the sanctity,

serenity and religious feelings of large number of devotees and will

be in violation of Article 29 of the Constitution of India. The Slum
15

Board is a creation of statute and has to exercise powers in

discharge of the duties as per the provisions of the Act and not tow

the lines of private litigants.

6. The respondent/State and the Board in unison would

contend that the petitioners are devotees and they have no locus to

file the petition. The present petition is not a public interest

litigation and the petitioners have not filed a representative suit

under Section 92 of the CPC. Therefore, the petition should be

dismissed. The writ petition is not entertainable in view of the

settlement entered into between the parties. Intention of the

petitioners/devotees is mischievous and being third parties, cannot

file the writ petition. Merely because the petitioners are objectors to

the preliminary notification, it cannot be said that they have a right

to challenge the notification with regard to slum in existence on the

lands which ostensibly belong to the Slum Board. The contention of

the petitioners that the Temple property is public property,

belonging to the Temple Samithi which is a trust, is unacceptable

and the Temple itself has encroached upon the land belonging to

the Government. 20 guntas of land surrounding Sy.No.845 in which
16

Sree Kalikamba Temple is situated is an encroachment of

Government property. Construction of houses in and around the

Temple would in no way affect or cause any disturbance to the

devotees, merely because the persons who would stay in the

houses are slum dwellers. The official respondents would seek

dismissal of the petition.

7. The slum dwellers had not been made parties. Impleading

applications were filed and impleading applicants were heard. The

learned counsel Sri Clifton Rozario appearing for the impleading

applicants would vehemently refute the submissions of the

petitioners in both, the writ petition and the review petition. He

would contend that the Temple Samithi has encroached upon the

land declared as a slum and the Slum Board has also constructed a

compound wall and is in the process of building houses in the said

land. The houses of slum residents were demolished for

construction, but construction of new houses has come to a

standstill due to the order of status quo subsisting in the subject

petition. The learned counsel further submits that there are no

grounds set out to review the order earlier made or challenge to the
17

impugned notifications. He would contend that slum dwellers do

have a right to reside in the rehabilitated houses and merely

because it is surrounding the Temple, the slum dwellers cannot be

left high and dry.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

9. The story begins with a notification issued by the State

Government on 11-05-1979 under Section 3(1) of the Act declaring

slum dwellers in slum areas in existence in Mandya City to be

rehabilitated. One of the survey number that was notified was the

area surrounding Sri Kalikamba temple, which was then known as

Kalikamba slum. Nothing transpired except correspondences

between the wings of the Government. The story gets fast

forwarded to 2003 when the Deputy Commissioner communicated

that 20 houses were in fact allotted to eligible beneficiaries of

Kalikamba slum area. This again brings life into litigation. The

communication dated 11-08-2003 reads as follows:
18

"ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸಂ ಯ ೆ ೋqïð

ನಂ.55, ಾ ೕ , ೇ ಾ ಪ ರಂ, ೆಂಗಳ$ರು-56020

¥ÉÆÃ£ÀA..3340930, 3363085, 3367326, 3366972, 3440779; 3344892,
3363506,

ನಂ.ಕ&ೊ'ಮ:ಸ: ೆ:)ೖ:+: 1:03-04 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 11-8-2003

,ೆ:
-ಾನ. / ಾ0&ಾ ಗಳ1,
ಮಂಡ. / ೆ,
ಮಂಡ..

-ಾನ. ೇ,

+ಷಯ: ಮ ೆ ಹಂ6&ೆ -ಾ7ರುವ ಬ,ೆ:.

ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ <ೌ ಸ-ಾಜ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶದB ಕCDರುವ 80 ಮ ೆಗE,ೆ ಅಹ
ಫ ಾನುಭ+ಗE,ೆ ಹಂ6&ೆ +ಳಂಬIಾJದು, ಸ&ಾ ರದ ಮಟDದB ಒತMಡ ಬರುNMದು, ಮಂಡEಯ 'ಣ ಯ
Pಾಗೂ -ಾನ. ಅಧ.Rರ '@ೇ ಶನದ )ೕ ೆ,ೆ ಮ ೆ ಸಂSೆ.: 1 ಂದ 43 ರವ ೆ,ೆ ಡವ ಸ-ಾಜದವ ,ೆ
ಹಂ6&ೆ -ಾಡ ಾJ@ೆ. ಮ ೆ ಸಂSೆ.: 44 ಂದ 66ರವ ೆ,ೆ &ಾ ಸ ಾJ@ೆ. 61 ಂದ 80ರವ ೆ,ೆ (20
ಮ ೆಗಳ1) &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶದ ಅಹ ಫ ಾನುಭ+ಗE,ೆ ಮ ೆ ಹಂ6&ೆ -ಾಡ ಾJ@ೆTಂಬ
ಅಂಶವನುU ತVಮ ಅವ,ಾಹ ೆ,ೆ ತರಬಯಸುWೆMೕ ೆ.

ತಮX ನಂಬು,ೆಯ,
ಸY/-
ಆಯುಕMರು,
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ &ೊಳ?ೆ 'ಮೂ ಲ ೆ ಮಂಡE,
ೆಂಗಳ$ರು."

Immediately thereafter, the Temple Samithi writes to the Chief

Minister requesting to clear 23 slum dwellers in the area on the

western side of the Temple and move them to houses near the
19

Tank Bed constructed under Ashraya Scheme. The communication

dated 7-10-2003 reads as follows:

",ೆ,
,ೌರIಾ']ತ ಮುಖ. ಮಂN ಗಳ1,
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ&ಾ ರ,
+_ಾನ `ೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳ$ರು -1

ಸ ಾXನ. ೆ,

+ಷಯ :ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ ,ಾ ಮ @ೇವWೆ a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಭ @ೇವ`ಾbನದ
ಪacಮದB ಮತುM ಪಕdದBರುವ ಅನಕೃತ ಗು7ಸಲುಗಳನುU
@ೇIಾಲಯದ ಆವರಣ ಂದ ೇ ೆ ಕ<ೆ,ೆ, ಅವರುಗE,ೆ
ಪfಾ ಯ ವ.ವ`ೆb -ಾ7, Wೆರವ -ಾ7ಸುವ ಬ,ೆ:.

`ಾ]g,

)ೕಲdಂಡ a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಭ @ೇವ`ಾbನ&ೆd ಸು-ಾರು 115 ವಷ ಗಳ ಇNPಾಸ+ದು ಮಂಡ.ದ
,ಾ ಮ@ೇವWೆ ಎಂದು ಾ-ಾಂ ತ,ೊಂ7ದು ಪjkಾ &ಾಠ.ಕ ಮಗಳ1 'ರಂತರIಾJ ನ<ೆದು&ೊಂಡು
ಬರುWಾM ಇ@ೆ.

ಈ @ೇವ`ಾbನ&ೆd ಮಂಡ. ಪಟDಣ ಮತುM ಅಕd ಪಕd ದ ,ಾ ಮಗEಂದ ಸಹ`ಾ ರೂ ಜನರು ಬರುವ
ಪದnN ಇರುತM@ೆ, )ೕಲdಂಡ a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಭ @ೇವ`ಾbನ&ೆd ಉಸುMIಾ ಯನುU ೋ7&ೊಳ1pವ ದ&ಾdJ
ಒಂದು ಸgN ಇರುತM @ೆ.

ಸgNವNqಂದ ಈಗ @ೇವ`ಾbನ&ೆd `ೇ ದ Pಾ,ೆ 1) ಾಜ,ೋಪ ರ 2) @ೇವ`ಾbನದ
ಅrವೃ ,n ಗsಾಂ ಕಣದ )ೕ ೆ ,ೋಪ ರ ಕಟುDವ ದು ಇWಾ. &ಾಠ.ಕ ಮಗಳನುU Pಾ &ೊಂ7ರುWೆMೕIೆ
PಾB ಈಗ ಾಜ,ೋಪ ರದ &ೆಲಸ ನ<ೆಯುWಾM ಇ@ೆ.

,ೌರIಾ']ತ ಮುಖ. ಮಂN ಗಳB ಮನ+ -ಾ7&ೊಳ1pವ @ೇ ೆಂದ ೆ Wಾ: 06-04-
2003ರಂದು ಈ +?ಾರದB ತಮXB ಮನ+ -ಾ7&ೊಂಡ )ೕ ೆ, ಅ@ೇ ಸbಳದB ಇದ 43 ಗು7ಸಲುಗಳ
tೈ ಸು-ಾರು 20 ಸಂ`ಾರಗಳನುU ಇBಂದ ೇ ೆ ಈ ೇ ೆ ಕ<ೆ ಅವರುಗE,ೆ ಪfಾ ಯ
ವ.ವ`ೆbAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆlÄÖ 20 UÀÄr¸À®ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Wೆರುವ -ಾ7 , ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ&ಾ ರ ಮತುM &ೊಳ?ೆ
'ಮೂ ಲನ ಮಂಡEಯವರು, @ೇವ`ಾbನ&ೆd ಸPಾಯ -ಾ7ರುWಾM ೆ.
20

43 ಗು7ಸಲುಗಳ tೈ 20 ಗು7ಸಲುಗಳ1 kಾvಾ ಇನುU 23 ಗು7ಸಲುಗಳ1 @ೇವ`ಾbನದ
ಪacಮ sಾಗದB PಾB IಾಸIಾJರುWಾM ೆ. ಈ ಗು7ಸಲುಗಳನುU ಸ&ಾ ರ ಮತುM &ೊಳ?ೆ 'ಮೂ ಲನ
ಮಂಡEಯವ ಂದ Wೆರವ -ಾ7 , @ೇವ`ಾbನದ ಪ ಸರವ ?ೆ ಾUJರುವ ದ&ೆd ಸPಾಯ -ಾಡುವಂWೆ
&ೋರುWೆMೕIೆ.

ಇವರುಗE,ೆ &ೊಳ?ೆ 'ಮೂ ಲನ ಮಂಡE ವNqಂದ ಕCDರುವ ಮ ೆಗಳ1.

2. ಮಂಡ. &ೆ ೆ ಅಂಗಳದB ಆಶ ಯ wೕಜ ೆಯ7ಯB 'Iೇಶನ ಅಥIಾ ಮ ೆಗಳನುU
&ೊಡುವ ದು.

3. ಈ tೈ ಅಥIಾ ಸ&ಾ ರವ fಾವ @ೇ ಪfಾ ಯ -ಾಗ ದB ಇವರುಗE,ೆ ವ.ವ`ೆbಯನುU
-ಾ7 ದಯ+ಟುD ಖು ಾ -ಾ7 &ೊಡ ೇ&ಾJ &ೋರುWೆMೕIೆ.

ವಂದ ೆಗyೆ$ ಡ ೆ

ಅಧ.Rರು, ತಮX + ಾ] ಗಳ1
a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgN ಮಂಡ. ¸À»/-"

The local Member of Legislative Assembly also springs into action

on a request from the Temple Samithi by his communication to the

Commissioner of the Board to shift 23 slum dwellers near the

temple. The communication reads as follows:

"ಎಂ.ಎz. ಆWಾXನಂದ, {.ಎ ,
ಾಸಕರು,
ಮಂಡ. |ೇvÀæ.
ೆಂಗಳ$ರು-2200316
&ೊಠ7 ಸಂSೆ.:350
ಾಸಕರ ಭವನ: 4
¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:JA.J¸ï.D.±Á /2000
-ಾನ. ೇ,
21

ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೆಶದB IಾಸIಾJದ 43 ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳB 20
ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳನುU <ೌ ಸ-ಾಜದ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಮಂಡEಯ ಮ ೆಗE,ೆ ಸbyಾಂತ ದು ಇನುU 23
ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳ1 &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೆಶದBರುವವರನುU ತgಳ1 &ಾ ೋ'ಯB 'g ರುವ &ೊಳ?ೆ
ಮಂಡEಯ ಮ ೆಗE,ೆ ಸbyಾಂತ &ೊಡ ೇ&ೆಂದು &ೋ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgNಯವರು
ಸB ರುವ ಮನ+ಯನುU ಈ ಪತ @ೊಡ ೆ ಲಗNM @ೆ. ಸದ ಮನ+ಯB @ೇವ`ಾbನದ ಪ ೋrವೃ
Pಾಗೂ /ೕ}ೋ _ಾರ &ಾಯ ವನುU ಹgX&ೊಂ7ರುವ ದ ಂದ ಈ ಪ @ೇಶದBರುವ ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳನುU
ತgಳ1 &ಾ ೋ'ಯB 'g ರುವ ಮ ೆಗE,ೆ ಸbyಾಂತ ಸುವ ದು ಅN ಅವಶ.ಕIಾJ@ೆ.

ಆದುದ ಂದ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶದB PಾB ಇರುವ 23 ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳನುU ತgಳ1
&ಾ ೋ'ಯB &ೊಳ?ೆ ಮಂಡEಯವNqಂದ 'g ರುವ ಮ ೆಗE,ೆ ಸbyಾಂತ ಸಲು ತುತು ಕ ಮ
&ೈ,ೊಳp ೇ&ೆಂದು &ೋರುWೆMೕ ೆ.

ವಂದ ೆಗyೆ$ ಂ ,ೆ,

ತಮX + ಾ] ,
¸À»/- 31-1
(ಎಂ.ಎz. ಆWಾXನಂದ)"

Nothing happens pursuant to the communication. Therefore, the

Temple Samithi approaches this Court in W.P.No.3910 of 2006

seeking eviction of 23 slum dwellers immediately to the houses

constructed in the Tamil Colony. The prayer in the writ petition is

as follows:

(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ,
order or direction as the case may be directing the
respondents to immediately shift the 23 families in
occupation of Kalikamba slum who have been allotted
with houses constructed in the Tamilian Colony in
Mandya City by the respondents 1 and 2 by clearing
22

the slum in the temple land of Sy.No.843 and 844 of
Mandya Village

(aa) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ,
order or direction as the case may directing the 2nd
respondent to implement its resolution dated
11.12.2002 in subject No.11 produced as Annexures-Q
and Q1 in full instead of same which is being
implemented partially.

(b) Direct the respondents to clear the slum if necessary
by taking the police help through 5th respondent by
shifting the 23 families in Kalikamba slum in the said
Kalikamba temple precincts to provide cleanliness and
neatness around the temple in hygienic condition as
otherwise it would create health problem to thousands
of devotees visiting the temple.

(c) Grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case
which is necessary in the interest of justice and
equity."

On 14-12-2012 the coordinate Bench of this Court passes the

following order:

"ORDER

The Commissioner of the Slum Development Board is
present before Court as identified by his learned counsel and
files an affidavit tendering unconditional apology for not being
present before Court on 7.12.2012. The same is accepted. The
Commissioner submits that the building was erected for
rehabilitation for 43 families, out of which, 21 families are
shifted, while 22 families will be rehabilitated in the said building
and an affidavit in that regard would be filed.

2. Learned counsel for 6th respondent submits that the
slum dwellers are not averse to the rehabilitation, but it is their
request that the area which is now a slum be declared so under
23

Sec.3 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act,
1956 and thereafter, put up construction and rehabilitate 22
families in the very same building, while some more slum
dwellers and their family in addition to 22 families would make
necessary applications to the Slum Development Board for
rehabilitation.

3. The answer to the question as to whether the area is to
be declared a slum under Sec.3 of the said Act is within the
jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner concerned and the
Government, which I have no reason to believe would not be
exercised, if necessary.

4. Primarily, the exercise by the Slum Development Board
is to ensure that the slums are eradicated and families living in
the slums are rehabilitated as otherwise, human life in the
slums would be meaningless and would offend Article 19 of the
Constitution, Right to Life, therefore, it is necessary to direct the
Slum Development Board to forthwith take action to rehabilitate
22 identified families in the building that was constructed for the
rehabilitation of the said families and to file an affidavit in that
record....."

During the pendency of the petition, it appears that another petition

is preferred by those dwellers in the houses of Tamil Colony and

this Court had granted an interim order of status quo in favour of

those people. Therefore, the rehabilitation of slum dwellers into the

houses already constructed was not possible.

10. Thereafter, comes the preliminary notification under

Section 3(1) of the Act. The notification seeks to acquire lands in

several survey numbers. The notification is as follows:
24

"¸ÀASÉå:JAAiÀÄÄJ£ï(2)116/2003-04
/ ಾ0&ಾ ಗಳ ಕ•ೇ ,
ಮಂಡ. / ೆ,
ಮಂಡ., ಾಂಕ: 07.01.2013.

tಾ ಥgಕ ಅ0ಸೂಚ ೆ

ಈ &ೆಳಕಂಡ ೆಡೂ.ƒನB ನಮೂ ರುವ ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ @ೇವ`ಾbನದ ಬE
ಇರುವ ಪ @ೇಶವ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶIಾJದು, ಮಂಡ. ,ಾ ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.843 ರB 19 ಗುಂ„ೆ tೈ 17 ಗುಂ„ೆ
ಪ @ೇಶದB Pಾಗೂ ಸ.ನಂ.844 ರB 14 ಗುಂ„ೆ tೈ 11 1/2 ಗುಂ„ೆ ಒಟುD 28 1/2 ಗುಂ„ೆ (`ೆd...ನB
Wೋ ರುವಂWೆ) ಪ @ೇಶದB ಹಲIಾರು ವಷ ಗEಂದ ಸು-ಾರು 45 ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳ1 ಗು7ಸಲುಗಳನುU
Pಾ &ೊಂಡು, Iಾಸ -ಾಡುNMದು, ಸದ ಪ @ೇಶವ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ @ೇವ`ಾbನದ ಹyೇ ಎಂ. . ರ`ೆM
ಾಜು+ನBದು, ಈ ಪ @ೇಶವ Pೆ6cನ `ಾಂದ Wೆ Pೊಂ ದು, ಈ ಪ @ೇಶ&ೆd ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಾಗ ೕಕ
`ೌಕಯ ಗEಲ@ೆ, Iಾಯು-ಾBನ./ಪ ಸರ -ಾBನ. ಂದ ಅ ಾ ೋಗ.ಕರIಾದ Iಾತವರಣ
ಸೃ†DfಾJರುತM@ೆ. ಇದ ಂದ ಸದ ಪ @ೇಶವ ಾಗ ೕಕರ Iಾಸ&ೆd wೕಗ.IಾJರುವ ಲIೆಂದು ಮತುM
ಮೂಲಭೂತ `ೌಕಯ ಗyಾದ ಅಗತ.&ೆd ತಕdಷುD ಕು7ಯುವ 'ೕ ನ `ೌಲಭ., {ೕ ೕಪ, ಚರಂ7
ವ.ವ`ೆb, ೌ?ಾಲಯ ವ.ವ`ೆb, ಇWಾ. `ೌಲಭ.ಗEಲ@ೇ ಇರುವ ದ ಂದ, ಈ ಪ @ೇಶವನುU &ೊಳ?ೆ
ಪ @ೇಶIೆಂದು ಅಂNಮ ಅ0ಸೂಚ ೆ Pೊರ7ಸುವ ದು ಸೂಕMIಾJ@ೆ ಎಂಬು@ಾJ ನನ,ೆ
ಮನವ &ೆfಾJರುತM@ೆ. ಾಂಕ: 26.12.2012 ರಂದು ವಸN ಇ ಾSೆಯ &ಾಯ ದa ಗಳ
ಅಧ.RWೆಯB ನ<ೆದ ಸsೆಯB ಸೂ6 ರುವಂWೆ, ಈ ೆಡೂ.ƒನB Wೋ ರುವ ಪ @ೇಶವನುU &ೊಳ?ೆ
ಪ @ೇಶIೆಂದು ‡ೂೕ†ಸಲು Nೕ-ಾ 'ಸ ಾJ@ೆ.

ಈ,ಾಗ ೇ -ಾನ. ಉಚc ಾ.fಾಲಯದB ಅ/ ಸಂSೆ.: 3910/2006 (GM-SLUM)
ರB @ಾಖ ಾJದು, ಾಂಕ: 14.12.2012 ರಂದು ಉಚc ಾ.fಾಲಯದB +?ಾರ}ೆ ನ<ೆದ
ಸಂದಭ ದB ಸದ ಪ @ೇಶದB ಇರುವ &ೊಳ?ೆಯನುU 'ಮೂ ಲ ೆ -ಾ7, ಇB Iಾ ಸುNMರುವ
'Iಾ ಗE,ೆ ಉತMಮ IಾWಾವರಣವನುU ಕBˆ &ೊಡ@ೆ ಇದB ಸಂ+_ಾನದB ಅಡಕIಾJರುವಂWೆ
ಾಗ ೕಕ ,ೆ /ೕ+ಸುವ ಹಕdನುU ‰ಟಕು,ೊE ದಂWಾಗುತM@ೆಂದು, ಆದ ಂದ ಕೂಡ ೇ &ೊಳ?ೆ
'Iಾ ಗಳ ಅನುಕೂಲ&ಾdJ ಅB ಅrವೃ n &ಾಯ ಗಳನುU &ೈ,ೊಂಡು, &ೊಳ?ೆಯನುU 'ಮೂ ಲ ೆ
-ಾಡುವಂWೆ Pಾಗೂ 09.01.2013 ೊಳ,ಾJ ಾ.fಾಲಯ&ೆd ಪ -ಾಣ ಪತ ಸBಸುವಂWೆ
ಆ@ೇaಸ ಾJ@ೆ.
25

ಆದ ಂದ, 1973ರ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ &ೊಳ?ೆ 'ಮೂ ಲ ಾ ಮತುM ಅrವೃ (ಸು_ಾರ}ೆ ಮತುM
'ಮೂ ಲ ೆ) &ಾTಯ ಪ ಕರಣ 3(1)ರ ೕWಾ. / ಾ0&ಾ ಗE,ೆ ದತMIಾJರುವ ಅ0&ಾರದನ]ಯ ಈ
&ೆಳ,ೆ &ಾŠ ರುವ ೆಡೂ.ƒನB ನಮೂ ರುವ ಪ @ೇಶವನುU &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶIೆಂದು ‡ೂೕ†ಸಲು
ಉ@ೇaಸ ಾJರುತM@ೆ.

. ಈ ಬ,ೆ: fಾ ಂದ ಾದರೂ ಅಥIಾ ಪ `ಾM‹ತ ಪ @ೇಶದ ಬ,ೆ: YWಾಸ Mವ ಳp fಾವ @ೇ
ವ. MಗEಂ@ಾದರೂ ಆ|ೇಪ}ೆಗEದB ಈ tಾ ಥgಕ ಅ0ಸೂಚ ೆ ಪ ಕಟ}ೆಯು ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಾಜ. ಪತ ದB
ಪ ಕಟIಾದ ಾಂಕ ಂದ ಮೂವತುM ವಸಗyೆ$ ಳ,ಾJ BŒತIಾJ ತಮX ಆ|ೇಪ}ೆಗಳನುU
/ ಾ0&ಾ ಗಳ ಕ•ೇ , ಮಂಡ. / ೆ, ಮಂಡ., ಇವರB ಸBಸ ದB, ಈ ಬ,ೆ: fಾ ಂದಲೂ fಾವ @ೇ
ೕNಯ ಆ|ೇಪ}ೆ/ತಕ ಾರುಗಳ1 ಇಲIೆಂದು ಪ ಗŠ , ಅಂNಮIಾJ ೆಡೂ.ƒನB ನಮೂ ರುವ
ಪ @ೇಶವನುU &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶIೆಂದು ‡ೂೕಷ}ೆಯನುU Pೊರ7ಸ ಾಗುವ ದು. 'ಗ ತ ಅವ0 gೕ ದ
ನಂತರ ಬರುವ ಆ|ೇಪ}ೆ/ತಕ ಾರುಗಳನುU ಪ ಗŠಸ ಾಗುವ ಲ.

ೆಡೂ.ƒ

PÀæ.¸ÀA. ಪ @ೇಶದ +ವರ -ಾBೕಕರು ಸIೆ ನಂಬ Jಕ ೆ/ಗುಂ. ZÀಕುdಬಂ

1 2 3 4 5 6
1 ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ 843 0.17 ಪjವ &ೆd:- a ೕ:&ಾE&ಾಂಭ
@ೇವ`ಾbನದ Yಂsಾಗದ ಬE ಇರುವ ಸgN, ಮಂಡ., @ೇವ`ಾbನ
ಪ @ೇಶ ಪacಮ&ೆd: ರ`ೆM
ಉತMರ&ೆd: &ಾE&ಾಂಭ
@ೇವ`ಾbನದ `ೇIಾ ಸgN,ೆ
`ೇ ದ ಅಂಗ7 ಮE,ೆಗಳ1
ದ•ಣ&ೆd: SಾಸJ ಮ ೆಗಳ1

2 ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ 844 11 1/2 ಪjವ &ೆd:- a ೕ:&ಾE&ಾಂಭ
@ೇವ`ಾbನದ Yಂsಾಗದ ಬE ಇರುವ `ೇIಾ @ೇವ`ಾbನ
ಪ @ೇಶ ಸgN, ಪacಮ&ೆd:ಸ.ನಂ:843 ಮತುM
ಮಂಡ., SಾಸJ ಮ ೆಗಳ1
ಉತMರ&ೆd: ಸ.ನಂ:843
ದ•ಣ&ೆd: aೕ ಲ•Ž
ಜ ಾಧ ನ`ಾ]g @ೇವ`ಾbನ&ೆd
`ೇ ದ 'Iೇಶನದ &ಾಂtೌಂ•
MlÄÖ 28 ½
UÀÄAmÉ

/ ಾ0&ಾ ,
ಮಂಡ. / ೆ,
26

ಮಂಡ."

The Temple Samithi files its objections to the preliminary

notification. The objections are in quite detail. Final notification did

not emerge. In the interregnum, a settlement comes about in the

writ petition. The settlement forms the fulcrum of the entire lis. The

settlement reads as follows:

"ಪರಸˆರ ಾ/ೕ ಒಪˆಂದ Pಾಗೂ @ಾನ ಪತ

ಸ ಎರಡು `ಾ+ರದ ಹ ಮೂರ ೇ ಇಸ+ಯ -ಾPೆ -ಾ6 ಒಂದ ೇ Wಾ ೕಖು ಕ ಾ ಟಕ
&ೊಳ,ೇ ಅrವೃ n ಮಂಡEಯ ಪರIಾJ )ೖಸೂರು 2 ೇ +sಾಗದ &ಾಯ 'Iಾ ಹಕ ಇಂ/'ಯ
ಮತುM ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgNಯ ಪರIಾJ ಅಧ.R ಾದ a ೕ ಎಂ. &ೆ
ಾಮBೕಂ,ೇ,ೌಡರವರು ಸಹ &ಾಯ ದa ಎಂ.{ a ೕ'Iಾz, { ೋರಯ. Pಾಗೂ ಸದಸ.ರುಗಳ1
ಮತುM &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶದ 'Iಾ ಗಳ ಸಂಘದ &ಾಯ ದa fಾದ a ೕ ಎಂ. { ಾಗಣ' {
a ೕ ಬಸವ ಾಜು ರವರುಗಳ1 ಈ ನ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ @ೇವ`ಾbನದ ಆವರಣದB ಸsೆ `ೇ a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ
`ೇIಾ ಸgN ವNqಂದ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಾಜ. ಉಚc ಾ.fಾಲಯದB &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶದBನ
'Iಾ ಗಳನುU ೇ ೆ ಕ<ೆ,ೆ ಸbyಾಂತ ಸಲು ಸB ದ ಅ/ ಸಂSೆ.: 3910/2006 ಬ,ೆ: +?ಾರ}ೆ
-ಾ7 -ಾನ. ಉಚc ಾ.fಾಲಯವ ಾಂಕ: 14-12-2012, 10-01-2013 ಮತುM 26-02-2013
ರಂದು 'ೕ7ದ ಮಧ.ಂತರ ಆ@ೇಶದಂWೆ ಪ aUತ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶದBನ 22 ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳನುU
ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ ತgEಯ &ಾ ೋ' ಪ @ೇಶದB ಮಂಡE ವNqಂದ 'g ರುವ ಮ ೆಗE,ೆ
ಸbyಾಂತರ -ಾಡಲು ಮಂಡE,ೆ 'ೕ7ದ ಆ@ೇಶದಂWೆ ಾಂಕ: 28-02-2013 ೊಳ,ೆ ಸbyಾಂತರ
&ಾಯ ವನುU ೆರIೇ -ಾನ. ಾ.fಾಲಯ&ೆd ಾಂಕ: 01-03-2013 ರಂದು tಾಲನ ಪ -ಾಣ
ಪತ ವನುU ಸBಸ ೇ&ಾJತುM, ಸbyಾಂತರ &ಾfಾ ಚರ}ೆಯನುU ಮಂಡEಯ ಅ0&ಾ ಗಳ1 / ಾಡEತದ
ಸಹwೕಗ@ೊಂ ,ೆ &ಾಯ ರೂಪ&ೆd ತರಲು ಾಂಕ: 28-02-2013 ರಂದು ಪ ಯNU @ಾಗ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ
&ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶದ 'Iಾ ಗಳ ಮುಖಂಡರುಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ ತgEಯ &ಾ ೋ' 'Iಾ ಗಳ
ಮುಖಂಡರುಗಳ1 Nೕವ ಪ N ೋದ ವ.ಕMಪ7 -ಾನ. ಾ.fಾಲಯದ ಆ@ೇಶವನುU
ಅನು ಾ'ನ,ೊEಸಲು ತ<ೆw7"ದ ಪ }ಾಮIಾJ / ಾ0&ಾ ಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ / ಾ "ೕBz
ವ ಾ'0&ಾ ಗಳ ಸಮುXಖದB ಮಂಡEಯ ಅ0&ಾ ಗಳ1 )ೕಲdಂಡ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶಗಳ
ಮುಖಂಡರುಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgNಯ ಪ_ಾ0&ಾ ಗyೆ$ ಡ ೆ ಚ6
Wೆ,ೆದು&ೊಂಡ Nೕ-ಾ ನದಂWೆ ಈ &ೆಳಕಂಡ ಅಂNಮ Nೕ-ಾ ನ&ೆd ಒಪˆ ಾJರುತM@ೆ
27

1. ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ ಸIೆ ನಂ: 843 ಮತುM 844 ರBನ 28.50 ಗುಂ„ೆ tಾ ರಂrಕ ‡ೂೕ†ತ
&ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶದBರುವ ಒಟುD 42 ಕುಟುಂಬಗE,ೆ ಅ@ೇ ಸbಳದB ಪ ನ ವಸN ಕBˆಸಲು
ಅವಶ.ಕ+ರುವ ಈ ಪತ @ೊಡ ೆ ಲಗNM ರುವ ನ|ೆಯB Wೊ ರುವ 20 ಗುಂ„ೆ (ಇಪˆತುM
ಗುಂ„ೆ) ಜgೕನನುU ಇದರ -ಾBೕಕ ಾದ a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgNಯವರು ಕ ಾ ಟಕ
&ೊಳ,ೇ ಅrವೃ n ಮಂಡE,ೆ ಮುಫWಾMJ @ಾನIಾJ 'ೕಡಲು Nೕ-ಾ 'ಸ ಾJರುತM@ೆ.
ಇದ&ೆd &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶದ 'Iಾ ಗಳ ಪ N'0ಗಳ1 ತಮX ಪjಣ ಒ‹ˆ,ೆಯನುU
'ೕ7ರುWಾM ೆ.

2. &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶದ 'Iಾ ಗಳ ಪ ನ ವಸN,ಾJ a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ
ಸgNಯವರು ಮಂಡE,ೆ @ಾನದ ರೂಪದB ಈ ಮೂಲಕ 'ಡ ಾಗುNMರುವ ಸದ 20 ಗುಂ„ೆ
(ಇಪˆತುM ಗುಂ„ೆ) ಜgೕ'ನB ಮಂಡE ವNqಂದ /+1 -ಾದ ಯB ಸದ &ೊಳ,ೇ
'Iಾ ಗE,ೆ 42 ಮ ೆಗಳನುU ಕೂಡ ೇ 'g ಸುವ wೕಜ ೆಯನುU tಾ ರಂrಸಲು
'ಯ-ಾನು`ಾರ ಕಮ ವYಸಲು Nೕ-ಾ 'ಸ ಾJರುತM@ೆ. Pಾಗೂ ಸದ /+1
-ಾದ ಯB ಮ ೆಗಳ '-ಾ ಣ&ೆd &ೊಳ,ೇ 'Iಾ ಗಳ1 ಸಹಮತ ವ.ಕMಪ7 ರುWಾM ೆ.

3. )ೕಲdಂಡ Nೕ-ಾ ನದಂWೆ ಈ,ಾಗ ೇ ಮಂಡEಯು tಾ ರಂrಕ ಅ0ಸೂಚ ೆಯB
ಪ `ಾM‹ ರುವ ಸIೆ ನಂ:843 ಮತುM 844 ರBರುವ ಒಟುD + Mೕಣ 28.50 ಗುಂ„ೆ,ೆ ಬದ ಾJ
ಅಂNಮ ಅ0ಸೂಚ ೆಯB ಈ ನದ ಒಪˆಂದದಂWೆ ನ|ೆಯB ಗುರುN ರುವಂWೆ 8.50 ಗುಂ„ೆ
+ Mೕಣ ವನುU a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgNಯವ ,ೆ {ಟುD &ೊಟುD ಉEದ ಸIೆ ನಂ: 843
ಮತುM 844 ರBರುವ 20 ಗುಂ„ೆ + Mೕಣ ವನುU -ಾತ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶIೆಂದು ‡ೂೕ†ಸಲು
ಪರಸˆರರು ಒಪˆ ಾJರುತM@ೆ.

4. ಈ ನ ಅಂದ ೇ 01-03-2013 ರಂದು &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶದ ಪ aUತ kಾಗದB
ಪರಸˆರರು `ೇ ನ<ೆ ದ ಸsೆಯ Nೕ-ಾ ನವನುU ಪ aUತ ಅ/ @ಾರ ಾದ a ೕ
&ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgNಯ ಪ_ಾ0&ಾ ಗಳ1 ಸದ ಅ/ ಸಂSೆ.: 3910/2006 ರB
ಾಂಕ: 04-03-2013 ರಂದು -ಾನ. ಉಚc ಾ.fಾಲಯದB ನ<ೆಯBರುವ +?ಾರ}ೆ
ಸಂಧಭ ದB ಪ Wೆ.ೕಕ ಅ/ ಯನುU ಸB ಪ ಕರಣವನುU ಅಂNಮIಾJ ಾ.fಾಲಯದ
Pೊರಗ<ೆ ಪರಸˆರರು ಒ‹ˆ ಇತ.ಥ ಪ7 ರುವ &ಾರಣ Yಂಪ<ೆಯುವ @ಾJ ಅ/ ಯನುU
ಾ.fಾಲಯ&ೆd ಸBಸಲು ಮತುM ಇದ&ೆd ತಮX ಆ|ೇಪ}ೆ ಇಲIೆಂದು ಪ NIಾ ಗyಾದ
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ &ೊಳ,ೇ ಅrವೃ n ಮಂಡE ಮತುM &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶದ 'Iಾ ಗಳ
ಸಂಘದ ಪ@ಾ0&ಾ ಗಳ1 ಸಹ -ಾನ. ಾ.fಾಲಯ&ೆd ಅ/ ಯನುU ಸBಸಲು ಸವ ರು ಒ‹ˆ
Nೕ-ಾ 'ಸ ಾJರುತM@ೆ.
28

5. )ೕಲdಂಡ Nೕ-ಾ ನಗಳ YನU ೆಯB -ಾನ. ಉಚc ಾ.fಾಲಯದ ಆ@ೇಶದಂWೆ
&ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶದ 22 'Iಾ ಗಳನುU Wೆರವ ,ೊEಸುವ &ಾಯ ವನುU &ೈ {ಡಲು
ಸವ ರು ಒ‹ˆ Nೕ-ಾ 'ಸ ಾJರುತM@ೆ Pಾಗೂ ಈ Nೕ-ಾ ನವನುU a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ
ಸgNಯ ಪ_ಾ0&ಾ ಗಳ1, &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶದ 'Iಾ ಗಳ1/ಸಂಘದ
ಪ N'0ಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ &ೊಳ,ೇ ಅrವೃ n ಮಂಡEಯ ಅ0&ಾ ಗಳ1 ಬದn ಾJ
tಾBಸಲು ಓ &ೇE ಸ ಇ@ೆTಂದು ಮನ,ೊಂಡು ಒ‹ˆ ಸY -ಾಡ ಾJ@ೆ.

ಮಂಡ. ಸIೆ ನಂ 843 ಮತುM 844 ರBರುವ ಒಟುD + Mೕಣ 28.50 ಗುಂ„ೆ,ೆ ?ೆಕುd ಬಂ ಈ
&ೆಳಕಂಡಂNರುತM@ೆ.

ಪjವ &ೆd:-a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ @ೇವ`ಾbನ

ಪacಮ&ೆd: ರ`ೆM Pಾಗೂ ಸIೆ ನಂ: 843 ರ ಜgೕನು ಮತುM SಾಸJ ಮ ೆಗಳ1

ಉತMರ&ೆd:- a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ @ೇವ`ಾbನದ `ೇIಾ ಸgN,ೆ `ೇ ದ ಅಂಗ7 ಮE,ೆಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ ಸIೆ
ನಂ: 843 ರ ಜgೕನು

ದ•ಣ&ೆd:SಾಸJ ಮ ೆಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ a ೕ ಲ•Ž ಜ ಾಧ ಾ `ಾ]g @ೇವ`ಾbನ&ೆd `ೇ ದ 'Iೇಶನದ
&ಾಂtೌಂ•

ಮಂಡ. ಸIೆ ನಂ: 843 ಮತುM 844 ರB a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgNಯವರು ಕ ಾ ಟಕ &ೊಳ,ೇ
ಅrವೃ n ಮಂಡE,ೆ @ಾನIಾJ 'ೕ7ರುವ ಒಟುD + Mೕಣ 20 ಗುಂ„ೆ,ೆ ZÉಕುd ಬಂ ಈ
&ೆಳಕಂಡಂNರುತM@ೆ.

ಪjವ &ೆd - ರ`ೆM ಮತುM a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ @ೇವ`ಾbನ
ಪacಮ&ೆd - ರ`ೆM
ಉತMರ&ೆd- a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ @ೇವ`ಾbನದ `ೇIಾ ಸgN,ೆ ಉE &ೊಂ7ರುವ kಾಗ
ಸIೆ ನಂ: 843 ರ ಜgೕನು
ದ•ಣ&ೆd - SಾಸJ ಮ ೆಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ a ೕ ಲ•Ž ಜ ಾಧ ಾ `ಾ]g @ೇವ`ಾbನ&ೆd
`ೇ ದ 'Iೇಶನದ &ಾಂtೌಂ•

ಸbಳ: ಮಂಡ.
ಾಂಕ: 01-03-2013
29

¸À»/- 1/3/2013 ¸À»/- 1/3/2013
a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgN ಮಂಡ. ಪರIಾJ a ೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾಸgN ಮಂಡ. ಪರIಾJ
a ೕ ಎಂ.&ೆ ಾಮBಂ,ೇ,ೌಡ ರವರು, ಅಧ.Rರು a ೕ ಎಂ.{ a ೕ'Iಾz ರವರು, ಸಹ &ಾಯ ದa

¸À»/- 1/3/2013 ¸À»/- 1/3/2013
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ &ೋಳ,ೇ ಅrವೃ n ಮಂಡEಯ ಪರIಾJ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ @ೇಶದ 'Iಾ ಗಳ ಸಂಘದ
aೕ ಎ ‰ೕಹ , &ಾಯ 'Iಾ ಹಕ ಇಂ/'ಯ , ಪರIಾJ a ೕ ಎಂ. {. ಾಗಣ' { a ೕ ಬಸವ ಾ•
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ &ೋಳ,ೇ ಅrವೃ n ಮಂಡE
2 ೇ +sಾಗ, )ೖಸೂರು

`ಾ•ಗಳ1:
¸À»/-1/3/2013
¸À»/-1/3/2013
²æÃ ¹.PÉ.gÀ«PÀÄªÀiÁgï, G¥À-ªÀÄÄRå
a ೕ ಎ .ಎz ಾಯಪˆ, &ಾನುಗುN 0&ಾ ಗಳ1
ಅrಯಂತರರು ಕ ಾ ಟಕ &ೊಳ,ೇ ಅrವೃ n
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ &ೋಳ,ೇ ಅrವೃ n ಮಂಡE,
ಮಂಡE ೆಂಗಳ$ರು"
ೆಂಗಳ$ರು

The settlement recognizes rights of slum dwellers and construction

of houses immediately in Sy.Nos. 843 and 844 to the extent of 20

guntas. Devotees, officers and representatives of slum dwellers

were signatories to the settlement. Noticing the settlement, the

coordinate Bench of this Court disposes of the petition on

12-03-2013, by the following order:

"ORDER

On 11.3.2013, the following order was passed:

"Taking on record the memo dated 11.3.2013 enclosing the
settlement deed-cum-gift deed dated 1.3.2013 to which is
enclosed the maps, for which the learned counsel for the
respondents have no opposition more particularly the
30

contents of the memo which are not in dispute by the
learned counsel, nothing further survives for consideration
in this petition.

The settlement between the petitioner and the
Deputy Commissioner does not mean that the slum should
not be cleared and the building should not be erected for
the benefit of slum dwellers. In other words, the Slum
Development Board will be bound by its decision to put up a
compound wall surrounding the extent of land which has
been donated by the petitioner and construct a building with
all necessary infrastructures for human habitation, for the
slum dwellers to occupy.

The Slum Development Board to place the plan for
construction of the building, before the Court on
12.3.2013."

2. The plan for construction of building for the benefit of
the slum dwellers and to put them in occupation of the building
is directed to be completed and concluded by 31.3.2013.

Petition is accordingly disposed of.

3. In view of the disposal of the petition, IA Nos.1/2013
and 2/2013 do not survive for consideration and are
accordingly, disposed of."

Therefore, the compromise entered into between the parties was

recorded by the coordinate Bench with a clear direction that the

plan for construction of the building for slum dwellers must be

approved and the slum dwellers must be put in the building and

also directed that the process to be completed and concluded by

31-03-2013 while the petition was disposed of on 12-03-2013.

Nothing happened again.
31

11. The Deputy Commissioner, after about 5 years, passes

the order rejecting the objections of the Temple Samithi. The

rejection is, inter alia, founded upon the compromise entered into

between the parties. Detailed order is passed as to why the

objections are untenable in the teeth of the compromise. The order

rejecting the objections reads as follows:

".... .... ....
ಅಂWೆTೕ ಈ ಎ ಾ ಅಂಶಗಳ )ೕ ೆ,ೆ ಪ ಸುMತ ಾಂಕ:07-01-2013ರ tಾ ಥgಕ
ಅ0ಸೂಚ ೆಯನುU Yಂದ&ೆd ಪ<ೆದು ಉಚŸ ಾ.fಾಲಯದB WP.3910/2006ರ ಪ ಕರಣದB
ಅ/ @ಾರರು 1 & 2 ೇ ಪ NIಾ ಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ ಸಂ 'Iಾ ಗಳ ಒಕೂdಟದ &ಾಯ ದa ಯವರು `ೇ
-ಾ7&ೊಂಡ ಪರಸˆರ ಾ/ ಒಪˆಂದ Pಾಗೂ @ಾನ ಪತ ದಂWೆ Pೊಸ@ಾJ ಅ0ಸೂಚ ೆ Pೊರ7ಸಲು
fಾವ @ೇ ಅ7" ಇಲIೆಂದು ಮನಗಂಡು. ಪ ಸುMತ +?ಾರದB &ೆಳಕಂಡಂWೆ -ಾ7ದ

ಆ@ೇಶ:-
ಆ@ೇಶ
-:ಆ@ೇಶ

ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ ಸ.ನಂ.843 Pಾಗೂ 844&ೆd ಸಂಬಂ0 ದಂWೆ ಅ/ @ಾರರು, 1 & 2 ೇ
ಪ NIಾ ಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ ಸಂ 'Iಾ ಗಳ ಒಕೂdಟದ &ಾಯ ದa ಯವರು `ೇ ಾಂಕ: 01-03-2013
ರಂದು -ಾ7&ೊಂಡ ಪರಸˆರ ಾ/ ಒಪˆಂದ Pಾಗೂ @ಾನ ಪತ ಮತುM `ೆd...ನುU ಉಚŸ ಾ.fಾಲಯವ
WP.3910/2006ರ ಪ ಕರಣದB ಾಂಕ:12-03-2013ರಂದು ಒ‹ˆ&ೊ೦ಡು ಪ ಕರಣ
ಮು&ಾMಯ,ೊE ರುವಂWೆ, ಈ ಕ•ೇ ಯ MUN(2)CR.116/2003-04 ಾಂಕ: 07-01-2013ರ
tಾ ಥgಕ ಅ0ಸೂಚ ೆಯB ಸ.ನಂ.843ರB ಪ `ಾM‹ ರುವ 0.17 ಗುಂ„ೆ ಯB 0.08.08 ಗುಂ„ೆಯನುU
&ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIೆ ಸgN,ೆ {ಟುD&ೊಟುD ಉEದ 0.08.08 ಗುಂ„ೆ Pಾಗೂ ಸ.ನಂ.844ರ 0.11.08 ಗುಂ„ೆ
`ೇ ದಂWೆ ಒ„ಾD ೆ 0.20 ಗುಂ„ೆಯB UÀÄr¸À®ÄUÀ½gÀÄªÀ ಪ @ೇಶವನುU ಕ ಾ ಟಕ PÉÆ¼ÀZÉ ಪ @ೇಶ
ಅ0'ಯಮ &ಾq@ೆ 1973ರ `ೆR 3ರ ೕತ. ಅಂNಮ ‡ೂೕಷ}ೆ Pೊರ7ಸುವ ಬ,ೆ: ಕ ಮವYಸಲು
wೕಜ ಾ '@ೇ ಶಕರು, / ಾ ನಗ ಾrವೃ n &ೋಶ, ಮಂಡ.ರವ ,ೆ ಆ@ೇa @ೆ. Pಾಗೂ ಕ ಮ
ಸಂSೆ.:3 ಂದ 35ರವ Jನ `ೇಪ <ೆ ಪ NIಾ ಗಳ1/ ಆ|ೇಪ}ೆ@ಾರರ &ೋ &ೆಯನುU Nರಸd @ೆ.
32

ಈ ಆ@ೇಶವನುU aೕಘ B‹,ಾರ ,ೆ ಉಕM ೇಖನ &ೊಟುD ಗಣ ೕಕ ದ ಪ NಯನುU ಪ aೕB
ಾಂಕ:20-03-2018 ರಂದು Wೆ ೆದ ಾ.fಾಲಯದB ‡ೂೕ† @ೆ."

Then comes the final notification on 26-03-2018 declaring 20

guntas of land in the area in question as a slum. Aggrieved by the

said order, both preliminary and final notifications are called in

question in the subject petition. Three years thereafter the Temple

Samithi is said to have realized that the compromise is coming in

the way and, therefore, filed review petition seeking review of the

order of the year 2013, that close the proceedings recording the

compromise.

12. The issue now would be, whether the claim of the

petitioners is to be entertained or otherwise. The entire submission

of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the compromise

entered into did not have the authority of the Temple, as there was

no resolution. This submission is unacceptable. The President of

the Temple Samithi as also, the present two petitioners, so as the

Temple Samithi were all signatories to the compromise. It is the

case of the State that the Temple Samithi has encroached upon the

land which is now declared to be a slum and wanting to construct or
33

constructed a Kalyana mantap. What is surprising is the Temple

Samithi does not challenge the acquisition proceedings, but the

devotees have come forward to challenge the notifications. The

Temple Samithi is wanting to shoot from the shoulders of the

devotees.

13. The devotees cannot be construed to be persons

interested even in terms of the Act. Section 2 of the Act deals with

definitions. Section 2(j) defines person interested. Section 2(i)

defines 'owner'. The petitioners who have challenged acquisition

proceedings i.e., the notifications under Section 3(1) of the Act are

neither persons interested nor owners of the property. The Temple

Samithi is aware that it has itself encroached upon Government

land and, therefore, has not come forward to challenge the

acquisition, but is wanting to be done through the devotees.

Therefore, for a challenge to the acquisition under the Act, the

petitioners are neither persons interested nor owners. Therefore,

they have no locus to challenge acquisition proceedings. The

subject petition is not a petition filed in public interest. The

petitioners are not religious minorities to contend that rights under
34

Article 29 of the Constitution are violated, as violation of Article 29

can be claimed by the declared religious minorities. The Temple

Samithi in the review petition has dedicated a paragraph

contending that the serenity and sanctity of the temple would be

lost, if slum dwellers reside in the vicinity of the temple. The said

paragraph reads as follows:

".... .... ....

19. This Hon'ble Court failed to consider that, the slum
is adjacent to the temple premises. If it is allowed to
continue it will affect the sanctity and serenity of the
temple. Therefore it is unimaginable to allow the co-
existence of temple and the slum together as it affects
the religious feelings of large number of devotees and it
is in violation of Article 29 of the Constitution."

14. What deeply wounds the conscience of the Court

are the contentions advanced by the Temple Samithi. The

Temple Samithi, in the review petition has lamentably

contended (supra) that the mere presence of slum dwellers

around the hallowed precincts of the temple, erodes its

sanctity and serenity and offends the religious sentiments of

countless devotees. The contention proclaims that slum

dwellers are lesser beings, bereft of the right to devotion,
35

right to shelter and a right to dwell beside a place of

worship. Such an assertion, in this enlightened age, is

appalling. The notion that the divine aura of a temple could

be diminished by the proximity of humble homes are sullied

by the entry of a slum dweller bespeaks a mindset steeped

in prejudice and exclusion. This Court, cannot but observe,

that such a stance is an attempt to rend society asunder

along the lines of caste, class or creed.

15. In a Nation whose Constitution enshrines equality

for all, where every citizen, be they exalted or downtrodden,

affluent or impoverished, is vested with the same

fundamental rights. Therefore, such a contention projected

by the Temple Samithi is wholly untenable. Equality does

not admit gradations of worth; it encompasses the entirety

of our citizenry. The sanctity of a Temple is not so fragile as

to be endangered by the presence of the creator's children

who, by accident of circumstance, live modestly beside it. To

suggest otherwise, is to deny the very universality that our

Constitution professes.
36

16. The Committee, having consciously entered into a

compromise, affixed the signatures thereto and permitted a final

notification to be issued upon its very foundation, endorsed by the

coordinate bench of this Court, the Temple Samithi cannot now

disavow the solemn statement. To contend otherwise, at this late

hour that no Resolution authorized the execution of a settlement is

an afterthought, bereft of substance or credibility. Once the

compromise has been recorded and acted upon, it binds its

signatories with the full force of law. The volte-face attempted

cannot be countenanced. The petition being without merit, must

therefore fail.

CONCLUSION:

It becomes necessary to observe that, if India has to

endure as a nation of the first order, it cannot consign any of

its citizens to a second class existence. The dignity of slum

dwellers is no less sacred that of the devout. The rights of

one cannot be secured by the suppression of the other. The

Constitution of India knows no hierarchy of human worth, all

are equal before its gaze.
37

REVIEW PETITION NO.387 OF 2021:

17. The review petition is preferred after 8 years of the

closure of the petition, only after looking into the objections filed by

the Board in the writ petition. Even otherwise, it was a compromise

entered into with eyes wide open by all the protagonists to the lis.

The Temple Samithi did not challenge it even. It cannot be

permitted to challenge it now, that too in the garb of filing a review

petition. There is no error, apparent on the face of the record as

obtaining under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, for this Court to

interfere and review/recall the order and restore the file for its fresh

hearing. If the review is entertained, it would now become contrary

to the law as declared by the Apex Court in the case of KAMLESH

VERMA v. MAYAWATI1, wherein it is held as follows:

"Summary of the principles

20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of
review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

1
(2013) 8 SCC 320
38

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not
within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be
produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted
in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144: (1922) 16 LW
37: AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR
1954 SC 526: (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean "a reason sufficient
on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule".
The same principles have been reiterated in Union of
India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337:
JT (2013) 8 SC 275]."

Therefore, the review petition lacking in merit, also requires to be

rejected.

18. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ petition is dismissed. Interim order of any kind subsisting is dissolved.

(ii) Consequential actions that had been stalled due to subsistence of interim order shall now be taken forward by the respondents to their logical conclusion and 39 rehabilitate slum dwellers, without brooking any further delay.

(iii) Review petition stands rejected.

Consequently, pending applications also stand disposed.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp CT:MJ

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court