- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42636 WP No. 65599 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.65599 OF 2016 (GM-SLUM) BETWEEN: S. JOHN WILLIAM @ BALASUNDRAM SON OF SOLOMON @ MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT NO.14, ITC COLONY QUARTERS, JEEVAHALLI COX TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING, MINISTRY-2, NO.213, 2ND FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, #55, 3rd FLOOR, ABHAYA COMPLEX, RISALDAR STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 020. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42636 WP No. 65599 of 2016 KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 & R3; SRI S.P. SATHISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2002 IN KSA.CR.5/89-90 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-C AND NOTIFICATION DATED 18.10.2002 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-D OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE DIRECT AND DECLARE THAT ACQUISITON PROCEEDINGS IF ANY TO THE INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENTS SHOULD BE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42636 WP No. 65599 of 2016 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 30.09.2002 passed in KSA CR. No.5/1989-90 (Annexure-C) by respondent No.3 and the Final Notification dated 18.10.2002 (Annexure-D) issued by respondent No.3, inter alia, in the alternative, sought for a direction to respondent No.2 to initiate acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' 2013, for short). 3. The relevant facts for adjudication of this petition are that, the petitioner claims to be the owner of the land bearing Khata No.13/6(old No.101-F) measuring 1000 sq. ft. in survey No.121 situated at Channappa lane, Doddigunte village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, having acquired the same under the registered Sale Deed dated 17.12.1971. 4. It is stated that respondent No.3 issued a Preliminary Notification dated 19.07.1983 under Section - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42636 WP No. 65599 of 2016 3(2) of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). The petitioner filed objections to the said Notification, which were considered, and the Preliminary Notification was subsequently cancelled. Thereafter, after two years, respondent No.3 issued another Preliminary Notification dated 25.01.1990, declaring the petitioner’s land as a slum area. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court in W.P. No.22916–21/1991 and by order dated 07.01.1997 (Annexure–A), this Court quashed the Notification and remitted the matter to respondent No.3 to reconsider the objections filed by the petitioner. 5. After the remand made by this Court, the petitioner filed a statement of objections as per (Annexure-B). Thereafter, respondent No.3 by overruling the objections filed by the petitioner, declared the petitioner's land as a 'slum-area' by order dated 30.09.2002 (Annexure-C), which is impugned in this writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42636 WP No. 65599 of 2016 6. It is also stated in the writ petition that, respondent No.3 issued a Final Notification dated 18.10.2002, declaring the land belonging to the petitioner and his neighbours as a 'slum-area' as per the Annexure-D. 7. Pursuant to the issuance of the Notification under Section 3 of the Act, respondent No.1 was required to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner under Section 17 of the Act. However, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 has not issued the Notification under Section 17 of the Act till date. Accordingly, the petitioner contends that the acquisition of land, made in view of declaration of the land as a ‘slum-area’, is to be quashed on the ground of delay and laches, as the respondent-authorities have not taken steps to issue the Notification under Section 17 of the Act. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 8. Heard Sri Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Mahantesh shettar, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42636 WP No. 65599 of 2016 learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 3 and Sri S.P. Sathisha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 9. Sri Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel appearing for petitioner, contended that despite the Notification under Section 3 of the Act was issued on 18.10.2002 (Annexure-D), the respondent-authorities have not taken steps to issue the Notification under Section 17 of the Act. Accordingly, it is argued that, on the ground of delay and laches, the impugned Notification (Annexure-D) requires to be set-aside by this Court. 10. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of this Court in WP No.22611/2005 and connected matters dated 02.06.2025 and contented that, under similar circumstances, on account of non-issuance of the Notification under Section 17 of the Act, this Court has previously passed an order in respect of a Notification issued under Section 3 of the Act. Accordingly, he sought the same relief in this writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42636 WP No. 65599 of 2016 11. Per conta, Sri S.P. Satisha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, sought to justify the impugned Notification at Annexure-D. Referring to paragraph No.9 of statement of objections, he contented that the respondent-authorities were unable to issue the Notification under Section 17 of the Act on the ground that the matter was pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).39936/2012, regarding the challenge made to Section 20 of the Act. He further submitted that the Act does not prescribe any time frame for the issuance of a Notification under Section 17 and therefore, he sought for dismissal of this writ petition. 12. Sri Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3 also sought to justify the impugned Notification of respondent No.3 at Annexure-D and submitted that the matter requires to be adjudicated under Section 21 of the Act. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42636 WP No. 65599 of 2016 13. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the scheduled land belonging to the petitioner was declared as a 'slum-area' by virtue of Section 3 of the Act by respondent No.3. This declaration was challenged before this Court in WP.No.22916- 21/1991 and by order dated 07.01.1997 (Annexure-A), this Court quashed the then impugned Notification dated 25.01.1990 and order dated 20.08.1991 therein and remitted the matter to respondent No.3 to afford an opportunity to the petitioner herein and to decide the matter in accordance with law. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued the Notification dated 18.10.2002 (Annexure-D) exercising power under Section 3 of the Act, to declare the land belonging to the petitioner as a 'slum-area', which is impugned in the present petition. 14. It is to be noted that, though the Notification under Section 3 of the Act was issued on 18.10.2002, however, till date the respondent-authorities have not - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42636 WP No. 65599 of 2016 taken steps to issue Notification under Section 17 of the Act. 15. Though the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 referred to the pendency of the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per paragraph No.9 of the statement of objections, the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)No.39936/2012 dated 25.02.2013 reads as follows: ”Leave granted. Operation of the imopugned order of the High Court in so far as the same strikes down Section 20 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') Shall remain stayed, until further orders from this Court. The petitioners shall be free to determine and pay compensation to the land owners in terms of Section 20 of the Act. Any such determination and payment shall remain subject to ultimate outcome of this appeal." 16. A perusal of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would indicate that, the striking down of Section 20 of the Act was stayed, as there has been no stage insofar as determining and payment of compensation to the land owners under Section 20 of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42636 WP No. 65599 of 2016 Act. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted that the interference at this stage is necessitated, as though the declaration that the area as a 'slum-area' under Section 3 of the Act as it is already a 22 years is elapsed from the date of issuance of the Notification at Annexure-D in the writ petition. 17. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & Anr Vs. D.Narsing Rao & Others reported in (2015) 3 SCC 695, where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the respondent-authorities, being statutory bodies to take decision in a matter at the earliest. They cannot defer a matter for a decade, even if the Act does not prescribe a specific time frame to pass the Final Notification. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42636 WP No. 65599 of 2016 18. It is also to be noted that the respondent- authorities are required to take a decision in the matter within a reasonable period. Considering the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case as well as the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25.02.2013 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.39936/2012, I am of the view that, the explanation offered by the learned counsel representing the respondents cannot be accepted, since the Notification under Section 17 has not been issued till date, despite the Notification is passed by respondent No.3 under Section 3(1) of the Act. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42636 WP No. 65599 of 2016 ii. The order dated 30.09.2002 (Annexure–C) in KSA CR.5/89-90 passed by respondent No.3 and Notification dated 18.10.2002 (Annexure– D) issued by respondent No.3 are hereby quashed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28