Karnataka High Court
Allabaksh S/O Khajasab Lakkadahare vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865
WP No. 108005 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 108005 OF 2023 (GM-SLUM)
BETWEEN:
ALLABAKSH
S/O. KHAJASAB LAKKADAHARE,
AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: S.M.KRISHNA NAGAR,
OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD - 580 028.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAYENDRA BHIMAKKANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING SECRETARIAT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIKAS SOUDHA, II FLOOR,
Digitally signed by BENGALURU - 560 001.
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Dharwad Bench, REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY,
Dharwad
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
BOARDS OF MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VIKAS SOUDHA II FLOOR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPTD. BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
BOARDS AND MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865
WP No. 108005 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. THE KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT
(CLEARANCE) BOARD,
REPTD., BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
NO.55, ABHAYA COMPLEX,
3RD FLOOR, RISALADAR ROAD,
SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 0220.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD - 580 001.
6. HUBBALLI - DHARWAD MUNCIPAL
CORPORATION (HDMC),
REPTD., BY ITS MUNCIPAL COMMISSIONER,
LAMINGTON ROAD,
HUBBALLI - 580 020.
7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
THE KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT
(CLEARANCE) BOARD,
1ST SUB DIVISION, TOLL NAKA,
DHARWAD,
DIST. DHARWAD - 580 004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KESHAVA REDDY, AAG A/W
SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 & R5;
SRI. RAVIRAJ C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R7;
SRI. RAVI C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
DE-NOTIFICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-Q DTD 22-04-2022 BRG.
NO. VAE 135 KOMAE 2018 ISSUED/PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865
WP No. 108005 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"A) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari by quashing the impugned de-notification vide ANNEXURE-Q dated: 22-04-2022 brg.No. VaE 135 KoMaE 2018 issued/passed by the Respondent No.1, in the interest of justice and equity.
B) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus and issue appropriate directions to the Respondents No.1, 3 to 7 to quantify and pay compensation to the Petitioner under Section 20 of the Slum Act in respect of slum notified lands belonging to Petitioner, ad-measuring 19 guntas/19772.90 sq.feet (totally 22 CTS Numbers) in Sy.No.5 out of totally measuring 2 Acres 26 Guntas of CTS Ward No.II (earlier Yallapur village), Bankapur Chowk-
Walvekar Hakkal, Hubballi City at the earliest, in the interest of justice and equity.
C) Alternatively, direct the Respondents No.1, 3 to 7 to pay damages from the year 1976 to be quantified as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and further direct the Respondents No.1, 3 to 7 to relocate all the slum dwellers from the lands belonging to Petitioner ad-measuring 19 guntas/19772.90 sq.feet (totally 22 CTS Numbers) in Sy.No.5 out of totally measuring 2 Acres 26 Guntas of CTS Ward No.II (earlier Yallapur village), Bankapur Chowk-Walvekar Hakkal, Hubballi City- to any other Government land and Respondents may be directed to de-notify the declaration of Slum and clear all the structures or buildings made in the lands in question and hand over vacant possession of the aforesaid land to the Petitioner forthwith, in the interest of justice and equity.
-4-NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR D) Issue such other suitable order/s or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard Shri Vijayendra Bhimakkanavar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Keshav Reddy learned AAG along with Shri T.Hanumareddy, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5; Shri Raviraj C.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4; & Shri Ravi C.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6.
3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:
In terms of a Gazette Notification dated 10.05.1976 issued under Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 ('Act' for short), the lands in question were declared to be a slum without issuing an acquisition notification under Section 17 of the Act or paying compensation to the petitioner. The lands in question were a subject matter of dispute between the family members of the Petitioner due to which no one from the petitioners family were able to exercise their rights over the subject lands. The petitioner attains possession of the subject lands only in the year 2009. In the interregnum, many slum dwellers start to settle in the subject lands in makeshift -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR housing and shanties. The respondents proceed to facilitate the slum dwellers in the subject lands without only basic amenities like pucca houses, roads, drainages, etc. merely by virtue of a declaration of the land to be a slum. Since no proceedings under Section 17 of the Act were initiated nor compensation was paid for over 30 years, the petitioners issue various representations to the respondent authorities for payment of compensation but those lead to no avail. The petitioners then institute legal proceedings before this Court. The Co-ordinate Bench of this court through a series of orders passed in WP No. 109961 of 2015, directs the respondents to initiate proceedings for completion of the acquisition process of the subject lands. In compliance with the orders, the respondent authorities initiated acquisition proceedings, issued a preliminary notification dated 16-11-2018 under Section 17 of the Act and even issue the final notification for acquisition and determine the compensation payable to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the petitioners file contempt proceedings in CCC No. 100078/2022. It is in these contempt proceedings does the respondent No. 1 file a notification dated 22-04-2022 before the Court, which withdraws the notification dated 16-11-2018 issued -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR by the respondents under Section 17 of the Act, thereby de-
notifying the subject lands. The contempt proceedings are then dropped reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said de-notification. Therefore, the petitioner has come knocking at the doors of this court, challenging the impugned notification dated 22-04-2022, de-notifying the petitioner's lands.
4. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The main issue for consideration of this Court is whether the Slum Board once having declared the land to be a slum without declaration under Section 17 of the Act, could now de-notify the land from acquisition. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.101473/2023 and connected matter, disposed on 27-09- 2024, in identical circumstances has held as follows:
"1. Heard the petitioners' counsel and also the learned AAG appearing for the respondents.
2. The prayer sought in Writ Petition No.101473/2023 is to issue it in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification bearing No.VaE/113/SBM2020 Bengaluru dated 11.04.2022 issued by respondent No.1 insofar as the petitioner is concerned in respect of the land bearing Survey No.37/2 vide Annexure-K and also issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take further steps pursuant to the notification dated 16.11.2018 bearing No.VaE-134-KoME-2018 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-E and -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR grant such other reliefs as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
3. The petitioners in writ petition No.104671/2023 prayed this Court to quash the impugned notification bearing No. VaE113 SBM 2020, Bengaluru, date 11.04.2022 vide Annexure-L issued by respondent No.1; to issue writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned report bearing No.Ashraya/VeVa-03/2021-22, dated 23.03.2022 vide Annexure-H submitted by the respondent No.6 Assistant Commissioner; to issue writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned report bearing No.RP-2/2020, dated 25.03.2022 vide Annexure-J submitted by the respondent No.5 Deputy Commissioner of Dharwad; so also sought for writ of mandamus to issue appropriate directions to respondents No.1, 3 to 7 to quantify and pay compensation under Section 20 of the Slum Act in respect of 06 acres 18 guntas 15 annas in Sy.No.37/3A of Nekar Nagar, Ayodhya village (V) at the earliest; and alternatively to direct the respondents No.1, 3 to 7 to pay damages and relocate all the slum dwellers from 06 acres 18 guntas 15 annas in Sy.No.37/3A of Nekar Nagar, Ayodhya village (V) to any the Government land and further direct the Respondents to clear all the structures or buildings made by them and hand over vacant possession of the aforesaid land to the petitioners and grant such other relief as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
4. The factual Matrix of the case in W.P.No.101473/2023 is that, respondent No.2 herein issued a notification under Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 ('the Slum Act', for short) notifying the land belonging to the petitioner bearing R.S.No.37/2B measuring 1 Acre 26 Guntas. The said notification was issued without even hearing the petitioners. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued allotment letter and possession certificate to about 457 families. The said allotees have put up construction and residing in the said land since last 20 years. The notification is produced as Annexure-A. It is also the case of the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR petitioner that, they submitted a representation to the respondents seeking compensation for the notified land as per the provisions of Slum Act even in 2015-16, but no action was taken and list of the persons/allottees is produced as Annexure-B. It is also contended that, as against the inaction on the part of the respondents, petitioners preferred the Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.103081/2016 seeking writ of mandamus to consider the representation for payment of compensation. The said writ petition came to be allowed with a direction to consider the representation for payment of compensation as per Annexure-C. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, respondent No.2 issued preliminary notification for acquisition of subject lands. Thereafter, respondents No.2 and 3 issued several recommendations to the respondent No.1 seeking issuance of final notification and payment of compensation on 16.11.2018. Respondent No.2 de-notified the entire acquisition proceedings with a view to evade payment of compensation to the land losers on 11.04.2022 and the same is produced as Annexure-K. It is also the contention that respondent No.2 also recommended not to de- notifying the same and there is no such provision under the Slum Act and if the same is de-notified, the persons who are in possession going to lose their right and Annexure-J is also produced before the Court and even petitioner also relied upon the copy of the minute of the deliberations as per Annexure-H. The copy of the Preliminary Notification dated 16.11.2018 s also produced as per Annexure-F and also produced copy of the order passed in CCC No.100054/2018 dated 14.11.2018 as per Annexure-E.
5. The counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.101473/2023 contended that;
5.1. The notification is erroneous and invoked the writ jurisdiction and the same is passed without hearing the petitioner. The impugned action of the respondents is highly arbitrary illegal perverse and the same is made with malafides.
-9-NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR 5.2. That the impugned action of the respondents is violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India inasmuch as petitioner is deprived of the land and compensation for subject land. The petitioners/land loser has not received even a penny from the respondents since 30 years of acquisition. The respondents have notified the subject land in the year 1992 and taken possession from the petitioners. Thereafter, the said land has been allotted to around 457 families by issuing possession certificates. The said families are constructed homes and residing in the subject land since more than 20 years. The respondents have been collecting municipal tax, road tax and other statutory taxes from the residents.
5.3. It is also contended that, once the notification was issued under Section 17 of the Slum Act, ought to have finalized determining the compensation. When the Court also directed to pay compensation and initiate appropriate proceedings and also when they did not comply with the same, the contempt proceedings was initiated. It is also contended that, once the land was acquired and possession was taken, the respondents cannot de-notify the same and under the Act there is no such provision and hence this Court has to exercise the writ jurisdiction.
5.4. The counsel in support of his arguments relied upon some of the documents produced along with the memo, particularly the possession certificate issued by the respondent Slum Board with respect to sites in petitioner's property and contended that, while issuing the possession certificate, even mentioned the notification dated 20.06.1992 even including the measurement and in terms of the Government Order No.YE/102/SBM2002 dated 18.10.2004 they have been in possession.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR 5.5. The counsel also in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case of Satetendra Parasad Jain Vs. State of UP and Others reported in (1993) 4 SCC 369 and referring to this judgment would contend that, the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed Sections 48, 17(1) and (3-A) and 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and held that, once possession is taken under Section 17(1), the Government cannot withdraw from acquisition under Section 48. The counsel brought to the notice of this Court the discussion made in paragraph No.14 and contend that, in the judgment in Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Shri Kishan, it was held that Government could not withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 once it had taken possession of the land and also relied upon the judgment in the case of Lt.Governor of H.P. Vs. Avinash Sharma reported in (1970) 2 SCC 149 and extracted paragraph No.8 with regard to invoking of General Clauses Act cannot pass such notification.
5.6. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in the case of Sanjeevnagar Health and Medical Employees Association Vs. Mohd. Abdul Wahab reported in (1996) 3 SCC 600 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.12, wherein also it is held that, only Section 48(1) gives power to withdraw from acquisition, that too when possession is taken. The counsel referring to this judgment would vehemently contend that, the respondents once they have declared the said property as slum property invoking Section 3 and subsequently a notification was issued under Section 14, they cannot withdraw the same and possession has been taken and put them in possession referring the Government notification and now they cannot contend that they have not taken any possession and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR no power is vested with the respondents to de-notify the same and hence this Court has to grant the relief as sought.
6. Per contra, learned AAG appearing for the respondent State brought to the notice of this Court Annexure-K passed by the respondent Government de-notifying the same since the preliminary notification dated 16.11.2018 vide Annexure-F is withdrawn. The counsel also vehemently contend that, no dispute that earlier they have filed writ petition and direction was given and prior to that notification was issued in the year 1992. The counsel also vehemently contend that the Assistant Commissioner has given the report that, even prior to declaring the same as slum property, they have sold the property by executing the sale agreement and power of attorney and the Assistant Commissioner has conducted detailed enquiry and submitted report on 23.03.2024 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad and report is produced as Annexure-R1. According to the said report, the owners of the said land have executed sale agreement in favour of the Hubballi sightless Labourers Association represented by its Secretary on 18.03.1985. The same was duly registered before the concerned Sub-Registrar Office on 19.03.1985. In furtherance of the said sale agreement a General Power of Attorney came to be executed by the owners of the land on 16.04.1985. The same is also registered on the said date by the concerned Sub-Registrar Office. The copies of the agreement of sale and General Power of Attorney are produced as Annexures-R2 and R3. It is also contended that, the said Association has formed a layout in the said land and allotted a plot to each labours and they handed over the possession under the document styled as "Plot Thaba Patra" and the same is produced as Annexure-R4 series. The counsel also would contend that, in view of the above background, the Government has rightly taken decision to drop the acquisition proceedings. The declaration of the said land as slum area does not amount to acquisition of the said land. The area coming under the said land was already in the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR occupation of many families who have constructed their houses in the said area. Since the said residential area was not having basic amenities like proper road, electricity, drinking water and drainage facilities, the area was declared as slum in order to develop the area by providing basic necessities and infrastructure. Hence the petitioner knowing fully well that he is not the owner of the land, but taking the shelter under notification declaring the area coming under the said land as slum area is trying to mislead the Court by filing the writ petition and hence he is not entitled for any relief.
7. Respondents No.2 and 3 have also filed statement of objections and they also relied upon the earlier preliminary notification and also subsequent notification and contend that these respondents are in no way responsible for the development of the slum in the said land and due to negligence of the petitioner, purchasers/land owners slum was developed in the said land and respondent No.4 only after satisfying with the ingredients of Section 3 of the Slum Act, has declared the said land as slum. It was brought to the notice of respondent No.1 about the illegal and unauthorised execution of bonds by appointing their person by the petitioner after the notification of de-notifying the land. Respondent No.1 has de-notified the said land after considering the fact relating to the said land in detail and financial burden to the Government and other grounds which have been urged in the petition cannot be considered. It is also contended that, the families were already living/settled on the said land since many years in the slum which developed in the land. The counsel appearing for the Slum Board also vehemently contend that, by issuing possession certificate only recognized their possession and notification was issued by the Government under Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973. The counsel also vehemently contend that the appeal lies under Section 59 of the Act and they cannot invoke writ jurisdiction.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR
8. The counsel appearing for the State also vehemently contend that in the possession certificates issued by the Association, survey numbers are also mentioned and now they cannot contend that the survey numbers are not mentioned and Section 3 is only invoked for improvement. It is also contended that Section 21 of General Clauses Act used for withdrawal. The counsel would contend that, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner not applicable and Section 48 can be invoked only after possession is taken by the Government and no such possession has been taken.
9. In W.P.No.104671/2023 similar facts have been urged and relied upon the notification dated 20.05.1992 as Annexure-A, Annexures B and B1 are MR numbers, representation given by the petitioners as Annexure-C, so also the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.102553/2017 is relied upon and the same is at Annexure-D. It is also contended that, subsequent to the order, Government also issued notification under Section 17 of the Act as per Annexure-E dated 16.11.2018. The recommendation dated 11.09.2019 is produced as Annexure-E1 and so also copy of the order dated 01.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.145811/2020 as per Annexure-F, copy of the minutes of deliberations of the Housing Department as Annexure-G, copy of the impugned report dated 25.03.2023 by the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-J, copy of the memo dated 19.04.2024 at Annexure-K, copy of the impugned notification dated 11.04.2022 issued by respondent No.1 at Annexure-L, copy of the application dated 06.07.2022 for production of document along with documents in CCC No.100064/2022 as Annexure-M, copy of the counter affidavit dated 12.08.2022 filed by respondent No.1 in contempt petition as Annexure- N, copy of the counter affidavit dated 09.09.2022 filed by the petitioners in contempt proceedings along with documents at Annexure-P, copy of the order dated 12.09.2022 passed in contempt petition as per Annexure-Q, copy of the communication dated 12.04.2002 by respondent
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR No.4 to respondent No.1 as per Annexure-R, copy of RTI replies dated 13.06.2022 and 11.01.2023 at Annexures T and T1.
10. W.P.No.104671/2023 is in respect of the area of 06 acres 18 guntas 15 annas in Sy.No.37/3A, declaring the same as slum area in the year 1992. The counsel for the petitioners in this petition would vehemently contend that, Annexure-L withdrawing the notification issued under Section 17 of the Act and so also the preliminary notification and withdrawing of the same is also without notice to the petitioners and hence the writ jurisdiction is invoked. The action of the respondents in unilaterally basing on the reports is without jurisdiction and no such provision is available in the Act to de-notify the same. There is no dispute about the fact that the land was declared as slum area in the year 1992 and also subsequently writ petitions are filed and directions were given and preliminary notification was issued and subsequently only with an intention to avoid payment of compensation created the report of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and based on the same, de-notifying the same unilaterally withdrawn as per Annexure-L without giving an opportunity, that too after utilizing and changing the nature of the land of the petitioners is violation of Article 14 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be quashed. It is also contended that, the Slum Board every year receives separate grant/fund under the State Budged under separate allocation to carry out its objective as well it receives fund from Central. The counsel would also contend that, if they are not bound to pay compensation, then it is their duty once they declared the same as slum area and provide all facilities alternatively direct respondents No.1, 3 to 7 to relocate the slum dwellers and handover the vacant possession.
11. Though not filed separate statement of objections in this petition, very same arguments were also canvassed by the learned AAG for the State as well as the counsel for the Slum Board, contending that, when sale agreement and Power of Attorney were
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR executed, they cannot file petition seeking for compensation.
12. In support of his arguments, petitioners' counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd and others Vs State of Karnataka and another reported in AIR 2011 SC 3430 and brought to the notice of this Court the principles laid down in the said judgment, deprivation of property by State ought to be for public purpose, right to claim compensation though not expressly included can be read in Article 300A. The counsel also brought to the notice paragraph 17 of the said judgment, wherein it is discussed with regard to the public purpose and also in paragraph 121 with regard to the payment of compensation. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraphs No.140 and 143, wherein discussion was made with regard to the principle contains no explicit substantive component like eminent domain but has many shades and colours and so also violation of principles of natural justice may undermine rule of law so also at times arbitrariness, proportionality, unreasonableness etc., but such violations may not undermine rule of law so as to invalidate a statute. Violation must be of such a serious nature which undermines the very basic structure of our Constitution and our democratic principles.
13. The counsel also relied the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.P.Nagarathana Vs. The Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority and others reported in ILR 2013 KAR 2657, wherein it is held that Section 48(1) was enacted giving liberty to the Government to withdraw the land from acquisition, the possession of which has not been taken. The counsel would contend that, if the possession is taken, then cannot be de-notified. The counsel brought to the notice of this Court the discussion made in paragraphs No.21, 22 and 23 of the said judgment to contend that, once the possession is taken by the State Government and handed over the same to BDA for formulation of the layout, the question
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR of withdrawing the land from acquisition under Section 48(1) does not arise.
14. The counsel also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Godrej and Boyce, decided on 27.10.1987 with regard to Section 48 of the Act and the same is also discussed in paragraph No.5. So long as possession is not taken over, the mere fact of a notification under Section 4 nor declaration under Section 6 having been made does not divest the owner of his rights in respect of the land or relieve him of the duty to take care of the land and protect it against encroachments. However, once possession is taken, the State Government cannot withdraw from the acquisition at any stage after taking the possession.
15. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The State of Karnataka and another Vs. B.R Muralidhar reported in (2022) 10 SCR 448 and brought to the notice of the discussion made in paragraph No.7 and so also in paragraph No.9 and contend that, in this judgment also discussed the judgment of K. T. Plantation Private Limited and so also the The Deputy Commissioner and Collector, Kamrup & Ors. Vs. Durganath Sarma reported in AIR 1968 SC 394, wherein even extracted paragraph No.21 and contend that under Section 20 of the Slum Areas Act as unconstitutional. Further direction was given, it is for the legislature to decide and prescribe the reasonable method of determining the market value for the purpose of paying compensation to the land losers.
16. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt.Ltd Vs. State of Harayana and another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656, wherein also a discussion is made with regard to the scope of sale agreement and execution of Power of Attorney and its legality and held that immovable property can be transferred/conveyed only by deed of conveyance (sale deed) duly stamped and registered as required by law - Explaining the nature and scope
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR of an agreement for sale, power of attorney and living will, held, GPA sales or Sale Agreement/GPA will transfers neither convey any title nor do they amount to transfer of, or create interest in, immovable property except to the limited extent of Section 53-A.
17. In reply arguments, learned AAG would vehemently contend that, though there is no provision under the Act for de-notification, de- notified the same invoking General Clauses Act, particularly Section 21, Power ot issue, to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind notifications, orders, rules or bye- laws, and powers are exercised under the General Clauses Act. Hence the contention of the petitioners that there is no any provision under the Act to de-notify the same cannot be accepted.
18. Having heard the petitioners' counsel and also the learned AAG appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 and also the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra, this Court has to analyse the material available on record as to whether this Court can exercise writ jurisdiction to quash the notification issued by the State in both the matters.
19. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are owners of the respective properties to the extent of 01 acre 26 guntas and also 06 acres 32 guntas in respect of Survey No.37/2B and 37/3A and also not in dispute that the said land was declared as slum area under Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Development)Act, 1973, as per the notification dated 20.05.1992. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners in both these petitions have approached this Court when the compensation was not paid and direction was given in both the petitions to consider the representation. It is also not in dispute that preliminary notifications are issued subsequent to the directions issued by this Court under Section 17 of the Act dated 16.11.2018. It is also not in dispute that in spite of preliminary notification was issued, respondents have not taken any action to
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR pay compensation and hence contempt proceedings was initiated wherein objections are filed and contempt proceedings was dropped since the State has raised the disputed issues. It is also important to note that respondent No.1 relied upon the report of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner to withdraw the earlier preliminary notification and the same is challenged in both the writ petitions.
20. This Court would like to rely upon Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Development) Act, 1973, which reads as follows:
3. Declaration of slum areas.- (1) Where the Government is satisfied, that,-
(a) any area is or is likely to be a source of danger to health, safety or convenience of the public of that area or of its neighborhood, by reason of the area being low-lying, insanitary, squalid, over-crowded or otherwise; or
(b) the buildings in any area, used or intended to be used for human habitation are,-
(i) in any respect, unfit for human habitation; or
(ii) by reason of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or faulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light or sanitation facilities, or any combination of these factors, detrimental to safety, health or morals, it may, by notification, declare such area to be a slum area.
(2) In determining whether a building is unfit for human habitation, for the purposes of this Act regard shall be had to its condition in respect of the following matters that is to say,-
(i) repair,
(ii) stability,
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR
(iii) freedom from damp,
(iv) natural light and air,
(v) water-supply,
(vi) drainage and sanitary conveniences,
(vii) facilities for storage, preparation and cooking of food and for the disposal of waste water, and the building shall be deemed to be unfit as aforesaid, if it is so defective in one or more of the said matters that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation.
21. Having considered Section 3 of the Act, it is very clear that notification was issued in the year 1992 declaring the area as slum area. It is also not in dispute that preliminary notification was also issued under Section 17 of the Act. This Court also would like to rely upon Section 17 of the Act. Sections 17 and 18 of the Act read as follows:
17. Power to acquire land.- Where the Government is satisfied that, for the purpose of executing any work of improvement in relation to any slum area or any building in such area or for the purpose of re-
developing any slum clearance area, or for the purpose of rehabilitating slum dwellers, it is necessary to acquire any land within, adjoining or surrounded, by any such area, it may acquire the land by publishing in the official Gazette, a notice to the effect that it has been decided to acquire the land in pursuance of this section:
Provided that before publishing such notice, the Government shall call upon the owner or any other person who, in the opinion of the Government, may be interested in such land, to show cause why it should not be acquired; and after considering the cause, if
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR any, shown by the owner or any other person interested in the land, the Government may pass such orders as it deems fit.
18. Land acquired to vest in Government free from all encumbrances.- When a notice under section 17 is published in the official Gazette, the land to which the said notice relates shall, on and from the date on which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances.
22. Section 17 is very clear that, where the Government is satisfied that, for the purpose of executing any work of improvement in relation to any slum area or any building in such area or for the purpose of re-developing any slum clearance area, or for the purpose of rehabilitating slum dwellers, it is necessary to acquire any land within, adjoining or surrounded, by any such area, it may acquire the land by publishing in the official Gazette. It is also important to note that in view of Section 17 the same is acquired. Section 18 is also very clear, when a notice under section 17 is published in the official Gazette, the land to which the said notice relates shall, on and from the date on which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances.
23. Having read provision under Section 18 of the Act, it is very clear that the land vests with the State free from all encumbrances. Now the question before this Court is weather respondent No.1 can de-notify the same as de-notified in the matters. The reasons assigned for de-notifying is also that, even prior to the notification, these petitioners have executed sale agreement and General Power of Attorney and in the first case they have relied upon the same as Annexures R1 and R2 and in the second case also relied upon documents, which have been filed by the petitioners themselves. The main contention of the petitioners that, once they have executed sale agreement and General Power of Attorney, in terms of the Power of Attorney and
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR sale agreement, the Association also delivered possession to some of the persons.
24. The petitioners' counsel relied upon the possession certificates issued by the Slum Board and having read the possession certificates, it is very clear that a notification was issued in the year 1992 and reference is also made in the possession certificates. It is also important to note that, the Government Notification No.YE/102/SBM2002 dated 18.10.2004 is referred in the possession certificates and in terms of the said notification they are in possession, and the same has been confirmed by issuing possession certificates. The contention of the respondent State is that only confirmed the possession and given possession, but having read the possession certificates, it is clear that in terms of Government Notification dated 18.10.2004, they have been in possession and reference of earlier notification is also made therein.
25. Regarding the contention of the respondent State that de-notification is made exercising the power center Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, it is to be noted that, the citation relied upon by the petitioners' counsel in Satetendra Parasad Jain's case (supra), it is very clear that, once the possession taken under Section 17(1), the Government cannot withdraw from acquisition under Section 48. It is also important to note that, in paragraph number 14 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court also discussed the judgment Rajasthan Housing Board's case and held that the Government could not withdraw the acquisition under Section 48 once it had taken possession of the land. The Hon'ble Apex Court also relied upon the judgment in the case of Lt.Governor of H.P. V. Avinash Sharma and extracted paragraph No.8 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:
".........after possession has been taken pursuant to a notification under Section 17 (1) the land is vested in the Government, and the notification cannot be cancelled under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, nor can the notification be withdrawn in
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR exercise of the powers under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. Any other view would enable the State Government to circumvent the specific provision by relying upon a general power. When possession of the land is taken under Section 17(1), the land vests in the Government. There is no provision by which land statutorily vested in the Government reverts to the original owner by mere cancellation of the notification."
26. Having read the discussion made above by The Honorable Apex Court in the judgment referred supra, it is very clear that, after possession has been taken pursuant to a notification under Section 17(1) the land is vested in the Government, and the notification cannot be canceled under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, nor the notification can be withdrawn in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act and hence contention of the learned AAG cannot be accepted.
27. Hence the very contention of the State that they invoked General Clauses Act and withdrew the same cannot be accepted. It is rightly contented by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that there is no any provision under the Act for de-notifying the same, but the contention of the learned AAG that General Clauses Act is invoked and the same is withdrawn cannot be accepted.
28. The other contention of the respondents that possession was not taken, having read series of documents of issuance of possession, which I have already referred above, it is very clear that, in view of the Government Notification dated 18.10.2004, possession was taken and confirmed the possession by issuing possession certificate.
29. With regard to the contention of the respondent State that, once they have executed sale agreement and Power of Attorney, they cannot seek any compensation, the counsel appearing for
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656 in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt.Ltd Vs. State of Harayana and another, wherein it is held that, execution of sale agreement and Power of Attorney will not convey any right on any person and the same can be conveyed only by deed of conveyance i.e., sale deed, that too duly stamped and registered as required by law. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the nature of agreement of sale and Power of Attorney and held GPA as well as agreement of sale neither convey any title nor do they amount to transfer of, or create interest in, immovable property except to the limited extent of Section 53-A.
30. Having considered the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgment also, it is clear that respondents have declared the land as slum area having taken note of scope of Section 3(a) of the Act and even it is for the purpose of improvement. I have already pointed out that in the possession certificates also the respondents have made a reference to the Government Notification dated 18.10.2004 and declared that they are in possession consequent upon the same and confirmed the possession by issuing possession certificates and now they cannot blow hot and cold contending that possession has not been taken. Even if the sale agreement/Power of Attorney does not convey any right, in view of the respondent State relying upon the possession certificates issued by the Association and the same is not registered document and also the other documents are also notary documents which have been relied upon by the petitioners in the second petition and the same also does not convey any title. When such being the case, when the petitioners are owners of the property and the same has not been disputed and when there is no any legal transfer before the Court, the very contention of the State cannot be accepted. The other judgments which have been relied upon by the petitioners' counsel are very clear with regard to taking possession is concerned. Once the possession has been taken,
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR the same cannot be withdrawn. The reason for withdrawing the same is also the report of the Assistant Commissioner and unilaterally taken the possession without affording any opportunity to the petitioners. The fact that these petitioners have approached this Court and this Court has given Direction and subsequent to the direction they have issued preliminary notification under Section 17 also not in dispute. When the documents which have been relied upon by the State does not convey any title and even assuming that the sale agreement and Power of Attorney are accepted, that will not create any right. It is also important to note that, petitioners' counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that, even they have not paid compensation to the agreement holder as well as for the Power of Attorney holder. Hence there is force in the contention of the petitioners that the sale agreement and Power of Attorney, even if it is accepted that it does not convey any title and title vests with the petitioners only. The petitioners have also produced the documents before the Court and even agreement holders and Power of Attorney holders have not made any claim. When such being the case, the petitioners, who are the owners of the land, are entitled for compensation. Hence the very issuance of notification is unlawful, that too without affording any opportunity and only based on the report of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. Hence both the petitions are liable to be allowed and respondent No.1 is directed to pay compensation in favour of the petitioners in accordance with law. The other contention of the learned AAG that the appeal lies under Section 59 of the Act and the said contention also cannot be accepted for the reason that there is no provision in the Act to de-notify and withdraw the notification and hence Section 59 of the Act cannot be invoked to file an appeal as contended.
31. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER i. Both the writ petitions are allowed.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR ii. The notification bearing No.VaE/113/ SBM2020 Bengaluru dated 11.04.2022, issued by respondent No.1, in both the petitions are quashed.
iii. Consequently, the impugned report bearing No.Ashraya/VeVa-03/2021-22, dated 23.03.2022 vide Annexure-H submitted by the respondent No.6 Assistant Commissioner and the impugned report bearing No.RP-
2/2020, dated 25.03.2022 respondent No.5 Deputy Commissioner of Dharwad, are quashed.
iv. Writ of mandamus is issued to respondents No.1, 3 to 7 to quantify and pay compensation under Section 20 of the Slum Act, in respect of lands in both these petitions."
(Emphasis supplied)
5. The afore quoted order of the learned Single Judge is affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.100107/2025 and connected matter in terms of the order dated 21-07-2025. The issues considered and the answers of the Division Bench are as follows:
"Issues:
12. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for consideration before this Court:
(i) Whether the provisions of the Slum Act empower de-notification of the land?
(ii) Whether the de-notification is justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case?
The Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 - An overview:
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR
13. Before adverting to the aforesaid points, it is apposite to refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons underlying the enactment. The Statement of Objects and Reasons, as published in the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 28.02.1973, reads as under:
"The Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1958 (Karnataka Act 8 of 1959) which was enacted for the improvement and clearance of slum areas in the State was struck down by the High Court and the appeal preferred by the State Government against the decision is pending before the Supreme Court.
Though local bodies have been effecting improvements to slums and have also cleared a few of them, the progress made so far has been very meagre and it is found that without adequate powers it has not been possible effectively to check the increase in the growth of slums and also clear the slums which are unfit for human habitation. A number of schemes for the improvement and clearance of slums are to be quickly implemented with financial assistance given by the Government of India. It has therefore become necessary to enact a law immediately to provide for the improvement and clearance of slums in the State."
14. The preamble to the Slum Act reads as under:
An Act to provide for the improvement and clearance of slums in the State of [Karnataka].
Whereas, the number of slums in certain areas in the State of [Karnataka] is increasing and is a source of danger to public health and sanitation of the said areas;
And, whereas, under the existing law it has not been possible effectively to check the increase, to eliminate congestion and to provide for basic needs such as streets, water-supply and drainage and to clear the slums which are unfit for human habitation;
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR And, whereas, to obviate this difficulty it is expedient to provide for the removal of un-hygienic and insanitary conditions prevailing in the slums, for better accommodation and improved living conditions for slum dwellers, for the promotion of public health generally and for the acquisition of land for the purpose of improving, developing or redeveloping slum areas, clearance of slums and rehabilitation of slum dwellers;
And, whereas, the Constitution of India enjoins, as a Directive Principle of State Policy that the State should improve public health;
15. This Court, in Bellam Thimmappa @ Guntige Thimmappa and Another v. Karnataka Slum Clearance Board and Others (AIR 1997 Kar 256), has succinctly summarised the object, scope, and implementation of the Act. The relevant extract reads as under:
10. xxx The Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance Act, has been enacted with a view to check increasing number of slums coming up throughout the State thereby endangering public health and sanitation and to eliminate congestion. The Act is also aimed at providing basic needs such as streets, water supply and drainage and to clear Slums which are unfit for human inhabitation. Section 3 which empowers the Government to declare an area as a slum does not in terms make any distinction between 'Slums' created with the permission of the owner of the land on which they come up and those which are created by acts of trespass by unauthorised occupants and squatters. What is important is whether an area sought to be declared as a 'Slum' satisfied the conditions prescribed by Section 3. If the answer is in the affirmative, such an area can be declared as a 'Slums' no matter the same is the result of an act of trespass or has come into existence on account of the neglect or the licence of the owner. The provisions of the Act also do not forbid the 'Slum' dwellers from approaching the Government or the competent authority to make a declaration in terms of Section 3 or other provisions
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR for that matter. Merely because the 'Slum Dwellers' had in the instant case themselves invoked the powers vested in the Government under Section 3 would not therefore invalidate a declaration made under the said provision. This is particularly so because any such determination or declaration has to be made after providing an opportunity of 'being heard' to the owners concerned who have a right of appeal against the final order that may be passed by the competent authority. The validity of any such order has therefore to be tested on its merits and not by a reference to the person at whose instance the same is passed. I therefore have no hesitation in rejecting the challenge mounted by the petitioner on that score also.
Analysis:
16. The determination of point No.(i) is contingent upon the outcome of point No.(ii). Accordingly, this Court proceeds to consider point No.(ii) first.
Regarding point No.(ii):
17. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life, which serves as an inexhaustible source of several other fundamental rights.
This Article has a wide and expansive application. The judiciary has interpreted the right to life to include the right to live with human dignity. The bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, and a congenial, non-congested environment suitable for human habitation are inextricably intertwined with the right to life.
18. It is the bounden duty of the State to provide the aforesaid essential facilities. When the right to life is examined in conjunction with the State's fundamental obligations, it becomes evident that the enactment of the Act was intended not only to safeguard the right to life but also to enable the State to discharge its fundamental duty in that regard.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Chameli Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others [(1996) 2 SCC 549], while analysing the scope of Article
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR 21 of the Constitution guaranteeing the Right to Life observed as under:
"8. In any organised society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man. It is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is freed from restrictions which inhibit his growth. All human rights are designed to achieve this object. Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. These are basic human rights known to any civilised society. All civil, political, social and cultural rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Convention or under the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without these basic human rights. Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not a mere protection of his life and limb. It is home where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere right to a roof over one's head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and develop as a human being. Right to shelter when used as an essential requisite to the right to live should be deemed to have been guaranteed as a fundamental right. As is enjoined in the Directive Principles, the State should be deemed to be under an obligation to secure it for its citizens, of course subject to its economic budgeting. In a democratic society as a member of the organised civic community one should have permanent shelter so as to physically, mentally and intellectually equip oneself to improve his excellence as a useful citizen as enjoined in the Fundamental Duties and to be a useful citizen and equal participant in democracy. The ultimate object of making a man equipped with a right to dignity of person and equality of status is to enable him to
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR develop himself into a cultured being. Want of decent residence, therefore, frustrates the very object of the constitutional animation of right to equality, economic justice, fundamental right to residence, dignity of person and right to live itself. To bring the Dalits and Tribes into the mainstream of national life, providing these facilities and opportunities to them is the duty of the State as fundamental to their basic human and constitutional rights."
20. In view of the exposition of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is the fundamental duty of the State to safeguard the right to life by ensuring the provision of adequate living space, safe and decent housing structures, clean and hygienic surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation, and essential civic amenities such as roads and other infrastructural facilities.
21. In the facts of the present case more fully discussed in the succeeding paragraphs, it is evident that, in furtherance of the object of the Act and the constitutional mandate, a notification under Section 3 of the Act was issued, declaring the area in question as a slum. Since the slum came to exist on private land, and in order to guarantee the right to life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, a notification under Section 17 of the Act was issued for acquisition of the said land. However, the acquisition proceedings were subsequently dropped on the ground of financial considerations. When it is the bounden duty of the State to provide essential civic amenities such as safe and adequate housing, sanitation, electricity, water, and clean surroundings, financial implications are inevitable and cannot be cited as a justification to abdicate such responsibility. Once it is demonstrated before the Court that the State has failed to protect the right to life, the only consideration for the Court is the enforcement and protection of that fundamental right. It hardly needs reiteration that the Constitutional Courts are the guardians of the fundamental rights of the citizens. It is wholly impermissible for the State to
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR deny the enforcement of the right to life under Article 21 on the pretext that its protection would entail a financial burden on the State exchequer.
22. Once this Court concludes that there is a violation of the right to life attributable to the inaction or omission of the State, it is incumbent upon the State to take appropriate measures to protect and restore such right, regardless of the financial implications. As noted in the minutes of the meeting referred and extracted in this judgment, the proposal for de-notification was based on untenable grounds, such as the absence of prior approval from the Finance Department before the issuance of the acquisition notification and the anticipated burden on the exchequer. This Court is unable to appreciate such excuses, particularly when a violation of the right to life under Article 21 has been established.
23. In the light of the judgments referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that, even where a slum exists on private land, irrespective of how or at whose instance such slum came into existence, directions may be issued for declaring the area as a slum and for undertaking its development, keeping in view the broader object and purpose of the Act. In such a situation, if the land is privately owned, the Court is empowered to direct acquisition of the said land in furtherance of the objectives of the Act.
24. A notification under Section 3 of the Slum Act came to be issued, pursuant to which allotment letters and possession certificates were granted to the families residing on the said property. It is the contention of the appellants that the Board merely issued Parichaya Patras to the families who were already in occupation of the land in question. The Board, however, contends that the said families were inducted into possession by the petitioners themselves by executing sale agreements and General Power of Attorney (GPA) documents. The GPA was executed in favour of the Hubballi Siteless Labourers Association, pursuant to which the land was divided into plots and allotted to siteless labourers, who were put in possession and are stated to have perfected their title through such sale agreements. It is the further contention
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR that, in view of the land having been divested by execution of GPAs and sale agreements, the petitioners have lost their right to claim compensation. It is also stated that the notification under Section 17 of the Slum Act was issued without knowledge of the existence of the said sale agreements and GPA. Only upon submission of the report by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner did this aspect come to light. Thereafter, a decision was taken to de-notify the land in question.
25. The above submissions may appear persuasive at first blush. However, upon deeper scrutiny of the records placed before this Court, the underlying reason for the de- notification becomes apparent. In order to demonstrate the arbitrary exercise of power by the Board, it is necessary to set out the sequence of events in detail. The contentions urged by the Board are found to be untenable for the following reasons:
a. The sale agreements and the General Power of Attorney (GPA), at best, created only an interest in the property and did not divest the petitioners of their absolute rights therein.
b. The execution of sale agreements and GPA cannot be construed as a lawful transfer of right, title and interest in the property in accordance with law. c. The petitioners retained the right to enforce their title or any other lawful claims against the occupants of the land.
d. The contention that the Board merely issued Parichaya Patras is far from the truth. The material on record, particularly as seen from Annexure-Y, clearly establishes that possession certificates were issued by the Board in exercise of its powers under the Slum Act, subject to certain conditions. Notably, the possession certificates make no reference to the alleged sale agreements or GPA. e. The issuance of possession certificates has conferred absolute rights in favour of the beneficiaries, and the property has thereby vested in them.
f. Consequently, any enforceable rights that the petitioners may have had stand extinguished by virtue of the said possession certificates.
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR g. The possession certificates imposes condition as;
"µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ
1. ¤ªÉñÀ£À/ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 15 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À PÁ® ¥ÀgÀ¨Ás gÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ.
2. F ¤ªÉñÀ£À/ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸Áé¢üãÀzÁgÀgÄÀ ¸ÀéAvÀ Rað£À°è ¸ÀĹÜwAiÀÄ°èlÄÖPÉƼÀîvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý.
3. ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ PÁAiÉÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ½UÉ M¼À¥n À ÖzÉ."
26. The list of beneficiaries under the slum development scheme in the larger extent of 26 acres, 2 guntas, and 14 annas is detailed in Annexure-B. Annexure-B contains particulars of the beneficiaries along with the respective plot numbers, boundaries, and measurements. Notably, the measurements reflected in the sale agreements do not correspond with those mentioned in the possession certificates. The Board has made no effort to reconcile its contention that Parichaya Patras were issued to the persons found in possession of the sites by the petitioners. If such contention were to be accepted, the measurement and boundaries of the sites ought to have matched, which is clearly not the case herein. Furthermore, if the Board had issued only Parichaya Patras, there would be no plausible justification for imposing a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years.
27. A notification under Section 3 of the Slum Act was issued in the year 1992. The petitioners subsequently submitted a representation to the Board seeking compensation for the notified land. Upon receiving no response, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.103081/2016, wherein a direction was issued to the Board to consider the said representation. Alleging disobedience and non- compliance with the order passed in the writ petition, the petitioners filed a contempt petition in CCC No.100054/2018. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 issued an endorsement stating that acquisition proceedings would be initiated and compensation would be paid. The endorsement dated 01.08.2018, in fact, records that sites had been allotted without initiating acquisition proceedings, and that steps
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR would be taken to acquire the land and disburse compensation.
28. In compliance with the undertaking given in the contempt proceedings, a notification under Section 17 of the Slum Act was issued on 16.11.2018 for acquisition of the lands in question. In its communication dated 07.01.2021 addressed to the Secretary, Housing Department, the Board even computed the approximate amount of compensation payable. It appears that the proposal was placed before the Finance Department for financial concurrence. However, the Finance Department declined to accord concurrence, citing that the notification issued under Section 17 of the Slum Act was in violation of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Rules, 1977. Consequently, a decision was taken to de-notify the land, and the impugned de-notification was issued on 11.04.2022.
28.1 The relevant minute of the meeting is extracted below:
"59) ªÉÄîÌAqÀ »A§gÀºÀzÀ£éÀAiÀÄ DyðPÀ E¯ÁSÉ ¸ÀASÉå:DE 631 ªÉZÀÑ-9/2021, ¢£ÁAPÀ:12.01.2022 gÀ°è PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ »A§gÀºÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
"The proposal has been examined.
Administrative Department is directed to:-
1)The de-notify forthwith, all the cases for which preliminary or final notification has been issued under Section 17 of Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1973.
2)To submit detailed report on why financial liability Rs.253.11 crores was created without taking Finance Department concurrence, in violation of Transaction of Business Rules, 1977."
29. The deviation from the acquisition process is stated to be on account of the execution of sale agreements and General Power of Attorney (GPA)
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR documents by the petitioners. Noticeably, the proceedings commenced with representations and a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus in the year 2016. Until the Finance Department declined to accord financial concurrence, the Board never raised the issue of sale agreements or GPA. It is only after the refusal of financial concurrence that the question of sale agreements was brought forth. The belated reference to the sale agreements and GPA in the impugned order raises serious doubts as to its genuineness. The veracity of this ground can be tested by examining the correspondence exchanged between the Board and the Government prior to the refusal of financial concurrence.
30. It is both interesting and relevant to refer to the communication addressed by the Board to the Secretary, Housing Department, dated 12.04.2022. In this communication, after adverting to the reports submitted by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, reference is made to the issuance of the notification under Section 17 of the Slum Act. It is recorded therein that, due to the inaction of the landowners, migrant labourers came to occupy the lands in question and began residing there. Since the persons residing on the said land were unauthorized occupants belonging to marginalized sections of society, and in order to provide them with basic civic amenities such as drinking water, sanitation, hygiene and reasonable accommodation, a notification under Section 3 of the Slum Act was issued. The communication further states that, once a notification under Section 17 of the Slum Act is issued, there is no enabling provision under the Act to de-notify the same. It is also recorded that, in the event of de-notification, the Board would lose its rights over the land developed by it, and consequently, the slum dwellers would be rendered unauthorized occupants, liable to be evicted.
31. A combined reading of the aforesaid communication and the resolution passed pursuant to the decision of the Finance Department makes it explicitly clear that the Slum Act contains no provision for de-notification of land once a
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR notification under Section 17 has been issued. Furthermore, the decision to de-notify the land from acquisition appears to have been taken solely to avoid the financial burden of compensation, while simultaneously continuing the third-party interests already created through the issuance of possession certificates.
32. The Board undertook two distinct actions: firstly, the issuance of the notification in respect of the land, and secondly, the issuance of possession certificates. While the effect of the notification can be nullified by de-notification, the third-party interests created through the possession certificates continue to subsist. The de-notification, in isolation, does not ipso facto annul the rights conferred through the possession certificates. As a consequence, the Board has failed entirely to cancel the possession certificates or to restore the status of possession to what it was prior to their issuance. This omission renders the de-notification process incomplete and ineffective in law.
33. The manner in which the de-notification has been effected is contrary to the object and spirit of welfare legislation, and is violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claim to possess right, title and interest in the property in question. It is a well-settled principle that no person can be deprived of their property save by authority of law. Without acquisition in accordance with law and without payment of compensation, the State or its instrumentalities cannot divest or extinguish the rights vested in the petitioners.
34. Even if it is assumed that the petitioners had transferred certain rights in the land through the execution of sale agreements, such transfer did not result in complete divestment of their ownership, as the sale agreements do not constitute a transfer of title in the manner recognized by law. The petitioners continued to retain certain rights from the bundle of ownership rights, which could have been enforced, but for the issuance of
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR possession certificates. However, with the creation of title in favour of the slum dwellers through the possession certificates issued by the Board, whatever residual rights the petitioners may have had stood effectively extinguished, thereby rendering them incapable of enforcement.
35. For the reasons stated hereinabove, it is evident that the decision to de-notify the land is legally impermissible. The mere existence of a financial burden cannot constitute a valid ground for such de-notification. Any such decision would directly defeat the object and purpose of the Act and would amount to a breach of the fundamental obligation of the State to safeguard the right to life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
36. Further, this Court is inclined to direct the appellant-Slum Board to conclude the acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the issuance of the notification under Section 17 of the Act and to complete the development of the slum by providing the civic amenities referred to in this judgment. While issuing such directions, it is equally imperative to safeguard the rights of the landowner in terms of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is a well-settled position of law that no person's property can be occupied or utilised without the payment of just compensation. In this view of the matter, the private respondent is entitled to compensation for the utilisation of his land.
37. If the Board was genuinely not in need of the lands in question, it ought to have restored possession to the petitioners in the manner in which it existed prior to the issuance of the notification and the subsequent possession certificates.
38. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the de-notification of the land under the impugned order dated 11.04.2022 is held to be illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR Regarding point No.(i):
39. The correspondence of the Board with the Secretary, Housing Department, dated 12.04.2022, and produced at Annexure-J, clearly acknowledges that there is no provision under the Slum Act for de- notification. The Board has sought to invoke Section 21 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899 to justify the de-notification. However, a comparative reading of the scheme of acquisition under the Slum Act with other enactments that provide for acquisition makes it evident that, wherever the legislature intended to permit de-notification, a specific enabling provision has been incorporated into the statute. In the absence of any such enabling provision under the Slum Act, the concession made by the Board that de-notification is not contemplated under the Act requires no further elaboration.
40. The learned Single Judge, after considering all the aforementioned factual aspects, has rightly held that the notification under Section 17 of the Slum Act was issued proposing to acquire the lands in question, and in view of the submissions made, the contempt proceedings were accordingly dropped. Thereafter, a preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Slum Act came to be issued. Upon a combined reading of Sections 17 and 18 of the Slum Act, it was held that the land vests absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances, from the date of issuance of the notification under Section
17. The learned Single Judge further held that the possession certificates issued by the Board pursuant to the Government notification created rights in favour of the beneficiaries. It is further held that once the land vests with the Government under Section 17(1) of the Slum Act, the same cannot be de-notified by invoking Section 21 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899. In support of this proposition, the learned Single Judge placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lt. Governor of H.P. vs. Avinash Sharma [(1970) 2 SCC 149].
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR
41. The learned Single Judge also held that mere execution of a sale agreement and General Power of Attorney does not convey title unless a registered sale deed is executed in accordance with law. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Another [(2012) 1 SCC 656]. It was further held that the possession certificates expressly declare that the occupants are in possession pursuant to the Government notification dated 18.10.2024. Once such possession is reconfirmed and rights are created, de-notification cannot be effected without first addressing the legal consequences of the rights so created under the possession certificates.
42. For the aforesaid reasons and upon careful consideration of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in quashing the impugned de- notification and directing payment of compensation, this Court is of the considered view that the de- notification is illegal and unjustifiable. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
43. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed.
44. The learned Single Judge, while issuing a direction to the authorities to quantify and pay compensation under Section 20 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973, has not prescribed any specific time frame for compliance. This Court deems it appropriate to direct the concerned authorities to complete the process of quantification and payment of compensation within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is needless to observe the respondent-land owners shall be entitled to interest on the compensation in accordance with law."
(Emphasis supplied)
6. Learned AAG Shri Keshav Reddy representing the State would now seek to distinguish those orders on a twin
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR score. The first submission is that, the petitioner himself has inducted people into the area and therefore, he should not be given the benefit of it to be declared as a slum. The said submission goes completely contrary to the facts of the case.
The subject lands were declared to be a slum way back in the year 1976 and the petitioner is said to have come in possession of the lands pursuant to a partition in the family in the year 2009. Therefore, there is no warrant to contend that the petitioner himself in the year 1976 had inducted people into the slum. Therefore, the said submission is contrary to the facts and is turned down.
7. The other submission is that the power under the General Clauses Act, 1897 is always available to undo what has been done at the hands of the State. He would invoke Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The said submission is already negatived by the learned Single Judge in terms of the afore-
quoted order dated 27.09.2024 which was later affirmed by the Division Bench. Hence the said submission also is unacceptable.
Therefore, the twin score that is projected by the learned AAG would thus tumble down.
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 WP No. 108005 of 2023 HC-KAR
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is de-notified only on the score that there is no approval by the Finance Department of the State for such acquisition. The said submission need not be considered or gone into in the light of the issue standing completely answered by what the Co-ordinate Bench and the Division Bench have held in the afore-quoted orders. The petition thus deserves to succeed. For the aforesaid reason, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned de-notification vide Annexure-Q dated 22.04.2022 issued by respondent No.1 stands quashed.
(iii) The compensation shall be determined as is ordered by the Co-ordinate bench within an outer limit of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order along with all statutory or applicable interest.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11