1 RESERVED ON : 13.06.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 19.09.2025 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 R 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 3. 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 “ಕಾಟಕ ಸಂ ಯೆ ೋqïð ನಂ.55, ಾ ೕ, ೇಾಪ ರಂ, ೆಂಗಳ$ರು-56020 ¥ÉÆãÀA..3340930, 3363085, 3367326, 3366972, 3440779; 3344892, 3363506, ನಂ.ಕ&ೊ'ಮ:ಸ:ೆ:)ೖ:+:1:03-04 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 11-8-2003 ,ೆ: -ಾನ. /ಾ0&ಾಗಳ1, ಮಂಡ. /ೆ, ಮಂಡ.. -ಾನ.ೇ, +ಷಯ: ಮೆ ಹಂ6&ೆ -ಾ7ರುವ ಬ,ೆ:. ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ <ೌ ಸ-ಾಜ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶದB ಕCDರುವ 80 ಮೆಗE,ೆ ಅಹ ಫಾನುಭ+ಗE,ೆ ಹಂ6&ೆ +ಳಂಬIಾJದು, ಸ&ಾರದ ಮಟDದB ಒತMಡ ಬರುNMದು, ಮಂಡEಯ 'ಣಯ Pಾಗೂ -ಾನ. ಅಧ.Rರ '@ೇಶನದ )ೕೆ,ೆ ಮೆ ಸಂSೆ.: 1 ಂದ 43 ರವೆ,ೆ ಡವ ಸ-ಾಜದವ,ೆ ಹಂ6&ೆ -ಾಡಾJ@ೆ. ಮೆ ಸಂSೆ.: 44 ಂದ 66ರವೆ,ೆ &ಾಸಾJ@ೆ. 61ಂದ 80ರವೆ,ೆ (20 ಮೆಗಳ1) &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶದ ಅಹ ಫಾನುಭ+ಗE,ೆ ಮೆ ಹಂ6&ೆ -ಾಡಾJ@ೆTಂಬ ಅಂಶವನುU ತVಮ ಅವ,ಾಹೆ,ೆ ತರಬಯಸುWೆMೕೆ. ತಮX ನಂಬು,ೆಯ, ಸY/- ಆಯುಕMರು, ಕಾಟಕ &ೊಳ?ೆ 'ಮೂಲೆ ಮಂಡE, ೆಂಗಳ$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. ಮಂNಗಳ1, ಕಾಟಕ ಸ&ಾರ, +_ಾನ `ೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳ$ರು -1 ಸಾXನ.ೆ, +ಷಯ :ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ ,ಾಮ @ೇವWೆ aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಭ @ೇವ`ಾbನದ ಪacಮದB ಮತುM ಪಕdದBರುವ ಅನಕೃತ ಗು7ಸಲುಗಳನುU @ೇIಾಲಯದ ಆವರಣಂದ ೇೆ ಕ<ೆ,ೆ, ಅವರುಗE,ೆ ಪfಾಯ ವ.ವ`ೆb -ಾ7, Wೆರವ -ಾ7ಸುವ ಬ,ೆ:. `ಾ]g, )ೕಲdಂಡ aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಭ @ೇವ`ಾbನ&ೆd ಸು-ಾರು 115 ವಷಗಳ ಇNPಾಸ+ದು ಮಂಡ.ದ ,ಾಮ@ೇವWೆ ಎಂದು ಾ-ಾಂ ತ,ೊಂ7ದು ಪjkಾ &ಾಠ.ಕಮಗಳ1 'ರಂತರIಾJ ನ<ೆದು&ೊಂಡು ಬರುWಾM ಇ@ೆ. ಈ @ೇವ`ಾbನ&ೆd ಮಂಡ. ಪಟDಣ ಮತುM ಅಕd ಪಕd ದ ,ಾಮಗEಂದ ಸಹ`ಾರೂ ಜನರು ಬರುವ ಪದnN ಇರುತM@ೆ, )ೕಲdಂಡ aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಭ @ೇವ`ಾbನ&ೆd ಉಸುMIಾಯನುU ೋ7&ೊಳ1pವ ದ&ಾdJ ಒಂದು ಸgN ಇರುತM @ೆ. ಸgNವNqಂದ ಈಗ @ೇವ`ಾbನ&ೆd `ೇದ Pಾ,ೆ 1) ಾಜ,ೋಪ ರ 2) @ೇವ`ಾbನದ ಅrವೃn, ಗsಾಂಕಣದ )ೕೆ ,ೋಪ ರ ಕಟುDವ ದು ಇWಾ. &ಾಠ.ಕಮಗಳನುU Pಾ &ೊಂ7ರುWೆMೕIೆ PಾB ಈಗ ಾಜ,ೋಪ ರದ &ೆಲಸ ನ<ೆಯುWಾM ಇ@ೆ. ,ೌರIಾ']ತ ಮುಖ. ಮಂNಗಳB ಮನ+ -ಾ7&ೊಳ1pವ @ೇೆಂದೆ Wಾ: 06-04- 2003ರಂದು ಈ +?ಾರದB ತಮXB ಮನ+ -ಾ7&ೊಂಡ )ೕೆ, ಅ@ೇ ಸbಳದB ಇದ 43 ಗು7ಸಲುಗಳ tೈ ಸು-ಾರು 20 ಸಂ`ಾರಗಳನುU ಇBಂದ ೇೆ ಈ ೇೆ ಕ<ೆ ಅವರುಗE,ೆ ಪfಾಯ ವ.ವ`ೆbAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆlÄÖ 20 UÀÄr¸À®ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Wೆರುವ -ಾ7, ಕಾಟಕ ಸ&ಾರ ಮತುM &ೊಳ?ೆ 'ಮೂಲನ ಮಂಡEಯವರು, @ೇವ`ಾbನ&ೆd ಸPಾಯ -ಾ7ರುWಾMೆ. 20 43 ಗು7ಸಲುಗಳ tೈ 20 ಗು7ಸಲುಗಳ1 kಾvಾ ಇನುU 23 ಗು7ಸಲುಗಳ1 @ೇವ`ಾbನದ ಪacಮ sಾಗದB PಾB IಾಸIಾJರುWಾMೆ. ಈ ಗು7ಸಲುಗಳನುU ಸ&ಾರ ಮತುM &ೊಳ?ೆ 'ಮೂಲನ ಮಂಡEಯವಂದ Wೆರವ -ಾ7, @ೇವ`ಾbನದ ಪಸರವ ?ೆಾUJರುವ ದ&ೆd ಸPಾಯ -ಾಡುವಂWೆ &ೋರುWೆMೕIೆ. ಇವರುಗE,ೆ &ೊಳ?ೆ 'ಮೂಲನ ಮಂಡE ವNqಂದ ಕCDರುವ ಮೆಗಳ1. 2. ಮಂಡ. &ೆೆ ಅಂಗಳದB ಆಶಯ wೕಜೆಯ7ಯB 'Iೇಶನ ಅಥIಾ ಮೆಗಳನುU &ೊಡುವ ದು. 3. ಈ tೈ ಅಥIಾ ಸ&ಾರವ fಾವ @ೇ ಪfಾಯ -ಾಗದB ಇವರುಗE,ೆ ವ.ವ`ೆbಯನುU -ಾ7 ದಯ+ಟುD ಖುಾ -ಾ7&ೊಡೇ&ಾJ &ೋರುWೆMೕIೆ. ವಂದೆಗyೆ$ಡೆ ಅಧ.Rರು, ತಮX +ಾ]ಗಳ1 aೕ &ಾ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$ರು-2200316 &ೊಠ7 ಸಂSೆ.:350 ಾಸಕರ ಭವನ: 4 ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:JA.J¸ï.D.±Á /2000 -ಾನ.ೇ, 21 ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೆಶದB IಾಸIಾJದ 43 ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳB 20 ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳನುU <ೌ ಸ-ಾಜದ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಮಂಡEಯ ಮೆಗE,ೆ ಸbyಾಂತದು ಇನುU 23 ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳ1 &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೆಶದBರುವವರನುU ತgಳ1 &ಾೋ'ಯB 'gರುವ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಮಂಡEಯ ಮೆಗE,ೆ ಸbyಾಂತ &ೊಡೇ&ೆಂದು &ೋ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgNಯವರು ಸBರುವ ಮನ+ಯನುU ಈ ಪತ@ೊಡೆ ಲಗNM@ೆ. ಸದ ಮನ+ಯB @ೇವ`ಾbನದ ಪ ೋrವೃ Pಾಗೂ /ೕ}ೋ_ಾರ &ಾಯವನುU ಹgX&ೊಂ7ರುವ ದಂದ ಈ ಪ@ೇಶದBರುವ ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳನುU ತgಳ1 &ಾೋ'ಯB 'gರುವ ಮೆಗE,ೆ ಸbyಾಂತಸುವ ದು ಅN ಅವಶ.ಕIಾJ@ೆ. ಆದುದಂದ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶದB PಾB ಇರುವ 23 ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳನುU ತgಳ1 &ಾೋ'ಯB &ೊಳ?ೆ ಮಂಡEಯವNqಂದ 'gರುವ ಮೆಗE,ೆ ಸbyಾಂತಸಲು ತುತು ಕಮ &ೈ,ೊಳpೇ&ೆಂದು &ೋರುWೆMೕೆ. ವಂದೆಗyೆ$ಂ,ೆ, 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. tಾಥgಕ tಾಥgಕ tಾಥgಕ tಾಥgಕ ಅ0ಸೂಚೆ ಅ0ಸೂಚೆ ಅ0ಸೂಚೆ ಅ0ಸೂಚೆ ಈ &ೆಳಕಂಡ ೆಡೂ.ƒನB ನಮೂರುವ 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 WೋರುವಂWೆ) ಪ@ೇಶದB ಹಲIಾರು ವಷಗEಂದ 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 `ಾಂದWೆ Pೊಂದು, ಈ ಪ@ೇಶ&ೆd ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಾಗೕಕ `ೌಕಯಗEಲ@ೆ, Iಾಯು-ಾBನ./ಪಸರ -ಾBನ.ಂದ ಅಾೋಗ.ಕರIಾದ Iಾತವರಣ ಸೃ†DfಾJರುತM@ೆ. ಇದಂದ ಸದ ಪ@ೇಶವ ಾಗೕಕರ Iಾಸ&ೆd wೕಗ.IಾJರುವ ಲIೆಂದು ಮತುM ಮೂಲಭೂತ `ೌಕಯಗyಾದ ಅಗತ.&ೆd ತಕdಷುD ಕು7ಯುವ 'ೕನ `ೌಲಭ., {ೕೕಪ, ಚರಂ7 ವ.ವ`ೆb, ೌ?ಾಲಯ ವ.ವ`ೆb, ಇWಾ. `ೌಲಭ.ಗEಲ@ೇ ಇರುವ ದಂದ, ಈ ಪ@ೇಶವನುU &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶIೆಂದು ಅಂNಮ ಅ0ಸೂಚೆ Pೊರ7ಸುವ ದು ಸೂಕMIಾJ@ೆ ಎಂಬು@ಾJ ನನ,ೆ ಮನವ&ೆfಾJರುತM@ೆ. ಾಂಕ: 26.12.2012 ರಂದು ವಸN ಇಾSೆಯ &ಾಯದaಗಳ ಅಧ.RWೆಯB ನ<ೆದ ಸsೆಯB ಸೂ6ರುವಂWೆ, ಈ ೆಡೂ.ƒನB Wೋರುವ ಪ@ೇಶವನುU &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶIೆಂದು ‡ೂೕ†ಸಲು Nೕ-ಾ'ಸಾJ@ೆ. ಈ,ಾಗೇ -ಾನ. ಉಚc ಾ.fಾಲಯದB ಅ/ ಸಂSೆ.: 3910/2006 (GM-SLUM) ರB @ಾಖಾJದು, ಾಂಕ: 14.12.2012 ರಂದು ಉಚc ಾ.fಾಲಯದB +?ಾರ}ೆ ನ<ೆದ ಸಂದಭದB ಸದ ಪ@ೇಶದB ಇರುವ &ೊಳ?ೆಯನುU 'ಮೂಲೆ -ಾ7, ಇB IಾಸುNMರುವ 'IಾಗE,ೆ ಉತMಮ IಾWಾವರಣವನುU ಕBˆ&ೊಡ@ೆ ಇದB ಸಂ+_ಾನದB ಅಡಕIಾJರುವಂWೆ ಾಗೕಕ,ೆ /ೕ+ಸುವ ಹಕdನುU ‰ಟಕು,ೊEದಂWಾಗುತM@ೆಂದು, ಆದಂದ ಕೂಡೇ &ೊಳ?ೆ 'Iಾಗಳ ಅನುಕೂಲ&ಾdJ ಅB ಅrವೃn &ಾಯಗಳನುU &ೈ,ೊಂಡು, &ೊಳ?ೆಯನುU 'ಮೂಲೆ -ಾಡುವಂWೆ Pಾಗೂ 09.01.2013 ೊಳ,ಾJ ಾ.fಾಲಯ&ೆd ಪ-ಾಣ ಪತ ಸBಸುವಂWೆ ಆ@ೇaಸಾJ@ೆ. 25 ಆದಂದ, 1973ರ ಕಾಟಕ &ೊಳ?ೆ 'ಮೂಲಾ ಮತುM ಅrವೃ (ಸು_ಾರ}ೆ ಮತುM 'ಮೂಲೆ) &ಾTಯ ಪಕರಣ 3(1)ರ ೕWಾ. /ಾ0&ಾಗE,ೆ ದತMIಾJರುವ ಅ0&ಾರದನ]ಯ ಈ &ೆಳ,ೆ &ಾŠರುವ ೆಡೂ.ƒನB ನಮೂರುವ ಪ@ೇಶವನುU &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶIೆಂದು ‡ೂೕ†ಸಲು ಉ@ೇaಸಾJರುತM@ೆ. . ಈ ಬ,ೆ: fಾಂದಾದರೂ ಅಥIಾ ಪ`ಾM‹ತ ಪ@ೇಶದ ಬ,ೆ: YWಾಸ Mವ ಳp fಾವ @ೇ ವ. MಗEಂ@ಾದರೂ ಆ|ೇಪ}ೆಗEದB ಈ tಾಥgಕ ಅ0ಸೂಚೆ ಪಕಟ}ೆಯು ಕಾಟಕ ಾಜ. ಪತದB ಪಕಟIಾದ ಾಂಕಂದ ಮೂವತುM ವಸಗyೆ$ಳ,ಾJ BŒತIಾJ ತಮX ಆ|ೇಪ}ೆಗಳನುU /ಾ0&ಾಗಳ ಕ•ೇ, ಮಂಡ. /ೆ, ಮಂಡ., ಇವರB ಸBಸದB, ಈ ಬ,ೆ: fಾಂದಲೂ fಾವ @ೇ ೕNಯ ಆ|ೇಪ}ೆ/ತಕಾರುಗಳ1 ಇಲIೆಂದು ಪಗŠ, ಅಂNಮIಾJ ೆಡೂ.ƒನB ನಮೂರುವ ಪ@ೇಶವನುU &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶIೆಂದು ‡ೂೕಷ}ೆಯನುU Pೊರ7ಸಾಗುವ ದು. 'ಗತ ಅವ0 gೕದ ನಂತರ ಬರುವ ಆ|ೇಪ}ೆ/ತಕಾರುಗಳನುU ಪಗŠಸಾಗುವ ಲ. ೆಡೂ.ƒ ೆಡೂ.ƒ ೆಡೂ.ƒ ೆಡೂ.ƒ PÀæ.¸ÀA. ಪ@ೇಶದ +ವರ -ಾBೕಕರು ಸIೆ ನಂಬ Jಕೆ/ಗುಂ. ZÀಕುdಬಂ 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ @ೇವ`ಾbನದ Yಂsಾಗದ ಬE ಇರುವ ಪ@ೇಶ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgN, ಮಂಡ., 843 0.17 ಪjವ&ೆd:- aೕ:&ಾE&ಾಂಭ @ೇವ`ಾbನ ಪacಮ&ೆd: ರ`ೆM ಉತMರ&ೆd: &ಾE&ಾಂಭ @ೇವ`ಾbನದ `ೇIಾ ಸgN,ೆ `ೇದ ಅಂಗ7 ಮE,ೆಗಳ1 ದ•ಣ&ೆd: SಾಸJ ಮೆಗಳ1 2 ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ @ೇವ`ಾbನದ Yಂsಾಗದ ಬE ಇರುವ ಪ@ೇಶ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgN, ಮಂಡ., 844 11 1/2 ಪjವ&ೆd:- aೕ:&ಾE&ಾಂಭ @ೇವ`ಾbನ ಪacಮ&ೆd:ಸ.ನಂ:843 ಮತುM SಾಸJ ಮೆಗಳ1 ಉತMರ&ೆd: ಸ.ನಂ:843 ದ•ಣ&ೆd: aೕ ಲ•Ž ಜಾಧನ`ಾ]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 ಪರಸˆರ ಪರಸˆರ ಪರಸˆರ ಾ/ೕ ಾ/ೕ ಾ/ೕ ಾ/ೕ ಒಪˆಂದ ಒಪˆಂದ ಒಪˆಂದ ಒಪˆಂದ Pಾಗೂ Pಾಗೂ Pಾಗೂ Pಾಗೂ @ಾನ @ಾನ @ಾನ @ಾನ ಪತ ಪತ ಪತ ಪತ ಸ ಎರಡು `ಾ+ರದ ಹಮೂರೇ ಇಸ+ಯ -ಾPೆ -ಾ6 ಒಂದೇ Wಾೕಖು ಕಾಟಕ &ೊಳ,ೇ ಅrವೃn ಮಂಡEಯ ಪರIಾJ )ೖಸೂರು 2ೇ +sಾಗದ &ಾಯ'Iಾಹಕ ಇಂ/'ಯ ಮತುM ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgNಯ ಪರIಾJ ಅಧ.Rಾದ aೕ ಎಂ. &ೆ ಾಮBೕಂ,ೇ,ೌಡರವರು ಸಹ &ಾಯದa ಎಂ.{ aೕ'Iಾz, { ೋರಯ. Pಾಗೂ ಸದಸ.ರುಗಳ1 ಮತುM &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶದ 'Iಾಗಳ ಸಂಘದ &ಾಯದafಾದ aೕ ಎಂ. { ಾಗಣ‘ { aೕ ಬಸವಾಜು ರವರುಗಳ1 ಈ ನ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ @ೇವ`ಾbನದ ಆವರಣದB ಸsೆ `ೇ aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgN ವNqಂದ ಕಾಟಕ ಾಜ. ಉಚc ಾ.fಾಲಯದB &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶದBನ 'IಾಗಳನುU ೇೆ ಕ<ೆ,ೆ ಸbyಾಂತಸಲು ಸBದ 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 ಪaUತ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶದBನ 22 ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳನುU ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ ತgEಯ &ಾೋ' ಪ@ೇಶದB ಮಂಡE ವNqಂದ 'gರುವ ಮೆಗE,ೆ ಸbyಾಂತರ -ಾಡಲು ಮಂಡE,ೆ 'ೕ7ದ ಆ@ೇಶದಂWೆ ಾಂಕ: 28-02-2013 ೊಳ,ೆ ಸbyಾಂತರ &ಾಯವನುU ೆರIೇ -ಾನ. ಾ.fಾಲಯ&ೆd ಾಂಕ: 01-03-2013 ರಂದು tಾಲನ ಪ-ಾಣ ಪತವನುU ಸBಸೇ&ಾJತುM, ಸbyಾಂತರ &ಾfಾಚರ}ೆಯನುU ಮಂಡEಯ ಅ0&ಾಗಳ1 /ಾಡEತದ ಸಹwೕಗ@ೊಂ,ೆ &ಾಯರೂಪ&ೆd ತರಲು ಾಂಕ: 28-02-2013 ರಂದು ಪಯNU@ಾಗ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶದ 'Iಾಗಳ ಮುಖಂಡರುಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ ತgEಯ &ಾೋ' 'Iಾಗಳ ಮುಖಂಡರುಗಳ1 Nೕವ ಪNೋದ ವ.ಕMಪ7 -ಾನ. ಾ.fಾಲಯದ ಆ@ೇಶವನುU ಅನುಾ’ನ,ೊEಸಲು ತ<ೆw7“ದ ಪ}ಾಮIಾJ /ಾ0&ಾಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ /ಾ ”ೕBz ವಾ’0&ಾಗಳ ಸಮುXಖದB ಮಂಡEಯ ಅ0&ಾಗಳ1 )ೕಲdಂಡ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶಗಳ ಮುಖಂಡರುಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgNಯ ಪ_ಾ0&ಾಗyೆ$ಡೆ ಚ6 Wೆ,ೆದು&ೊಂಡ Nೕ-ಾನದಂWೆ ಈ &ೆಳಕಂಡ ಅಂNಮ Nೕ-ಾನ&ೆd ಒಪˆಾJರುತM@ೆ 27 1. ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ ಸIೆ ನಂ: 843 ಮತುM 844 ರBನ 28.50 ಗುಂ„ೆ tಾರಂrಕ ‡ೂೕ†ತ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶದBರುವ ಒಟುD 42 ಕುಟುಂಬಗE,ೆ ಅ@ೇ ಸbಳದB ಪ ನ ವಸN ಕBˆಸಲು ಅವಶ.ಕ+ರುವ ಈ ಪತ@ೊಡೆ ಲಗNMರುವ ನ|ೆಯB Wೊರುವ 20 ಗುಂ„ೆ (ಇಪˆತುM ಗುಂ„ೆ) ಜgೕನನುU ಇದರ -ಾBೕಕಾದ aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgNಯವರು ಕಾಟಕ &ೊಳ,ೇ ಅrವೃn ಮಂಡE,ೆ ಮುಫWಾMJ @ಾನIಾJ 'ೕಡಲು Nೕ-ಾ'ಸಾJರುತM@ೆ. ಇದ&ೆd &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶದ 'Iಾಗಳ ಪN'0ಗಳ1 ತಮX ಪjಣ ಒ‹ˆ,ೆಯನುU 'ೕ7ರುWಾMೆ. 2. &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶದ 'Iಾಗಳ ಪ ನ ವಸN,ಾJ aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgNಯವರು ಮಂಡE,ೆ @ಾನದ ರೂಪದB ಈ ಮೂಲಕ 'ಡಾಗುNMರುವ ಸದ 20 ಗುಂ„ೆ (ಇಪˆತುM ಗುಂ„ೆ) ಜgೕ'ನB ಮಂಡE ವNqಂದ /+1 -ಾದಯB ಸದ &ೊಳ,ೇ 'IಾಗE,ೆ 42 ಮೆಗಳನುU ಕೂಡೇ 'gಸುವ wೕಜೆಯನುU tಾರಂrಸಲು 'ಯ-ಾನು`ಾರ ಕಮ ವYಸಲು Nೕ-ಾ'ಸಾJರುತM@ೆ. Pಾಗೂ ಸದ /+1 -ಾದಯB ಮೆಗಳ '-ಾಣ&ೆd &ೊಳ,ೇ 'Iಾಗಳ1 ಸಹಮತ ವ.ಕMಪ7ರುWಾMೆ. 3. )ೕಲdಂಡ Nೕ-ಾನದಂWೆ ಈ,ಾಗೇ ಮಂಡEಯು tಾರಂrಕ ಅ0ಸೂಚೆಯB ಪ`ಾM‹ರುವ ಸIೆ ನಂ:843 ಮತುM 844 ರBರುವ ಒಟುD +Mೕಣ 28.50 ಗುಂ„ೆ,ೆ ಬದಾJ ಅಂNಮ ಅ0ಸೂಚೆಯB ಈ ನದ ಒಪˆಂದದಂWೆ ನ|ೆಯB ಗುರುNರುವಂWೆ 8.50 ಗುಂ„ೆ +MೕಣವನುU aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgNಯವ,ೆ {ಟುD &ೊಟುD ಉEದ ಸIೆ ನಂ: 843 ಮತುM 844 ರBರುವ 20 ಗುಂ„ೆ +MೕಣವನುU -ಾತ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶIೆಂದು ‡ೂೕ†ಸಲು ಪರಸˆರರು ಒಪˆಾJರುತM@ೆ. 4. ಈ ನ ಅಂದೇ 01-03-2013 ರಂದು &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶದ ಪaUತ kಾಗದB ಪರಸˆರರು `ೇ ನ<ೆದ ಸsೆಯ Nೕ-ಾನವನುU ಪaUತ ಅ/@ಾರಾದ aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgNಯ ಪ_ಾ0&ಾಗಳ1 ಸದ ಅ/ ಸಂSೆ.: 3910/2006 ರB ಾಂಕ: 04-03-2013 ರಂದು -ಾನ. ಉಚc ಾ.fಾಲಯದB ನ<ೆಯBರುವ +?ಾರ}ೆ ಸಂಧಭದB ಪWೆ.ೕಕ ಅ/ಯನುU ಸB ಪಕರಣವನುU ಅಂNಮIಾJ ಾ.fಾಲಯದ Pೊರಗ<ೆ ಪರಸˆರರು ಒ‹ˆ ಇತ.ಥ ಪ7ರುವ &ಾರಣ Yಂಪ<ೆಯುವ @ಾJ ಅ/ಯನುU ಾ.fಾಲಯ&ೆd ಸBಸಲು ಮತುM ಇದ&ೆd ತಮX ಆ|ೇಪ}ೆ ಇಲIೆಂದು ಪNIಾಗyಾದ ಕಾಟಕ &ೊಳ,ೇ ಅrವೃn ಮಂಡE ಮತುM &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶದ 'Iಾಗಳ ಸಂಘದ ಪ@ಾ0&ಾಗಳ1 ಸಹ -ಾನ. ಾ.fಾಲಯ&ೆd ಅ/ಯನುU ಸBಸಲು ಸವರು ಒ‹ˆ Nೕ-ಾ'ಸಾJರುತM@ೆ. 28 5. )ೕಲdಂಡ Nೕ-ಾನಗಳ YನUೆಯB -ಾನ. ಉಚc ಾ.fಾಲಯದ ಆ@ೇಶದಂWೆ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶದ 22 'IಾಗಳನುU Wೆರವ ,ೊEಸುವ &ಾಯವನುU &ೈ {ಡಲು ಸವರು ಒ‹ˆ Nೕ-ಾ'ಸಾJರುತM@ೆ Pಾಗೂ ಈ Nೕ-ಾನವನುU aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgNಯ ಪ_ಾ0&ಾಗಳ1, &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶದ 'Iಾಗಳ1/ಸಂಘದ ಪN'0ಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ ಕಾಟಕ &ೊಳ,ೇ ಅrವೃn ಮಂಡEಯ ಅ0&ಾಗಳ1 ಬದnಾJ tಾBಸಲು ಓ &ೇE ಸ ಇ@ೆTಂದು ಮನ,ೊಂಡು ಒ‹ˆ ಸY -ಾಡಾJ@ೆ. ಮಂಡ. ಸIೆ ನಂ 843 ಮತುM 844 ರBರುವ ಒಟುD +Mೕಣ 28.50 ಗುಂ„ೆ,ೆ ?ೆಕುd ಬಂ ಈ &ೆಳಕಂಡಂNರುತM@ೆ. ಪjವ&ೆd:-aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ @ೇವ`ಾbನ ಪacಮ&ೆd: ರ`ೆM Pಾಗೂ ಸIೆ ನಂ: 843 ರ ಜgೕನು ಮತುM SಾಸJ ಮೆಗಳ1 ಉತMರ&ೆd:- aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ @ೇವ`ಾbನದ `ೇIಾ ಸgN,ೆ `ೇದ ಅಂಗ7 ಮE,ೆಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ ಸIೆ ನಂ: 843 ರ ಜgೕನು ದ•ಣ&ೆd:SಾಸJ ಮೆಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ aೕ ಲ•Ž ಜಾಧಾ `ಾ]g @ೇವ`ಾbನ&ೆd `ೇದ 'Iೇಶನದ &ಾಂtೌಂ• ಮಂಡ. ಸIೆ ನಂ: 843 ಮತುM 844 ರB aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgNಯವರು ಕಾಟಕ &ೊಳ,ೇ ಅrವೃn ಮಂಡE,ೆ @ಾನIಾJ 'ೕ7ರುವ ಒಟುD +Mೕಣ 20 ಗುಂ„ೆ,ೆ ZÉಕುd ಬಂ ಈ &ೆಳಕಂಡಂNರುತM@ೆ. ಪjವ&ೆd - ರ`ೆM ಮತುM aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ @ೇವ`ಾbನ ಪacಮ&ೆd - ರ`ೆM ಉತMರ&ೆd- aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ @ೇವ`ಾbನದ `ೇIಾ ಸgN,ೆ ಉE&ೊಂ7ರುವ kಾಗ ಸIೆ ನಂ: 843 ರ ಜgೕನು ದ•ಣ&ೆd - SಾಸJ ಮೆಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ aೕ ಲ•Ž ಜಾಧಾ `ಾ]g @ೇವ`ಾbನ&ೆd `ೇದ 'Iೇಶನದ &ಾಂtೌಂ• ಸbಳ: ಮಂಡ. ಾಂಕ: 01-03-2013 29 ¸À»/- 1/3/2013 aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾ ಸgN ಮಂಡ. ಪರIಾJ aೕ ಎಂ.&ೆ ಾಮBಂ,ೇ,ೌಡ ರವರು, ಅಧ.Rರು ¸À»/- 1/3/2013 aೕ &ಾE&ಾಂಬ `ೇIಾಸgN ಮಂಡ. ಪರIಾJ aೕ ಎಂ.{ aೕ'Iಾz ರವರು, ಸಹ &ಾಯದa ¸À»/- 1/3/2013 ಕಾಟಕ &ೋಳ,ೇ ಅrವೃn ಮಂಡEಯ ಪರIಾJ aೕ ಎ ‰ೕಹ, &ಾಯ'Iಾಹಕ ಇಂ/'ಯ, ಕಾಟಕ &ೋಳ,ೇ ಅrವೃn ಮಂಡE 2ೇ +sಾಗ, )ೖಸೂರು ¸À»/- 1/3/2013 &ಾE&ಾಂಬ &ೊಳ?ೆ ಪ@ೇಶದ 'Iಾಗಳ ಸಂಘದ ಪರIಾJ aೕ ಎಂ. {. ಾಗಣ‘ { aೕ ಬಸವಾ• `ಾ•ಗಳ1: ¸À»/-1/3/2013 aೕ ಎ.ಎz ಾಯಪˆ, &ಾನುಗುN 0&ಾಗಳ1 ಕಾಟಕ &ೋಳ,ೇ ಅrವೃn ಮಂಡE, ೆಂಗಳ$ರು ¸À»/-1/3/2013 ²æà ¹.PÉ.gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï, G¥À-ªÀÄÄRå ಅrಯಂತರರು ಕಾಟಕ &ೊಳ,ೇ ಅrವೃn ಮಂಡE ೆಂಗಳ$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 ಎಾ ಅಂಶಗಳ )ೕೆ,ೆ ಪಸುMತ ಾಂಕ:07-01-2013ರ tಾಥgಕ ಅ0ಸೂಚೆಯನುU Yಂದ&ೆd ಪ<ೆದು ಉಚŸ ಾ.fಾಲಯದB WP.3910/2006ರ ಪಕರಣದB ಅ/@ಾರರು 1 & 2ೇ ಪNIಾಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ ಸಂ 'Iಾಗಳ ಒಕೂdಟದ &ಾಯದaಯವರು `ೇ -ಾ7&ೊಂಡ ಪರಸˆರ ಾ/ ಒಪˆಂದ Pಾಗೂ @ಾನ ಪತದಂWೆ Pೊಸ@ಾJ ಅ0ಸೂಚೆ Pೊರ7ಸಲು fಾವ @ೇ ಅ7“ ಇಲIೆಂದು ಮನಗಂಡು. ಪಸುMತ +?ಾರದB &ೆಳಕಂಡಂWೆ -ಾ7ದ -:ಆ@ೇಶ ಆ@ೇಶ ಆ@ೇಶ ಆ@ೇಶ:- ಮಂಡ. ನಗರದ ಸ.ನಂ.843 Pಾಗೂ 844&ೆd ಸಂಬಂ0ದಂWೆ ಅ/@ಾರರು, 1 & 2ೇ ಪNIಾಗಳ1 Pಾಗೂ ಸಂ 'Iಾಗಳ ಒಕೂdಟದ &ಾಯದaಯವರು `ೇ ಾಂಕ: 01-03-2013 ರಂದು -ಾ7&ೊಂಡ ಪರಸˆರ ಾ/ ಒಪˆಂದ Pಾಗೂ @ಾನ ಪತ ಮತುM `ೆd…ನುU ಉಚŸ ಾ.fಾಲಯವ WP.3910/2006ರ ಪಕರಣದB ಾಂಕ:12-03-2013ರಂದು ಒ‹ˆ&ೊ೦ಡು ಪಕರಣ ಮು&ಾMಯ,ೊEರುವಂWೆ, ಈ ಕ•ೇಯ MUN(2)CR.116/2003-04 ಾಂಕ: 07-01-2013ರ tಾಥgಕ ಅ0ಸೂಚೆಯB 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„ಾDೆ 0.20 ಗುಂ„ೆಯB UÀÄr¸À®ÄUÀ½gÀĪÀ ಪ@ೇಶವನುU ಕಾಟಕ PÉƼÀZÉ ಪ@ೇಶ ಅ0'ಯಮ &ಾq@ೆ 1973ರ `ೆR 3ರ ೕತ. ಅಂNಮ ‡ೂೕಷ}ೆ Pೊರ7ಸುವ ಬ,ೆ: ಕಮವYಸಲು wೕಜಾ '@ೇಶಕರು, /ಾ ನಗಾrವೃn &ೋಶ, ಮಂಡ.ರವ,ೆ ಆ@ೇa@ೆ. Pಾಗೂ ಕಮ ಸಂSೆ.:3 ಂದ 35ರವJನ `ೇಪ<ೆ ಪNIಾಗಳ1/ ಆ|ೇಪ}ೆ@ಾರರ &ೋ&ೆಯನುU Nರಸd@ೆ. 32 ಈ ಆ@ೇಶವನುU aೕಘB‹,ಾರ,ೆ ಉಕMೇಖನ &ೊಟುD ಗಣ ೕಕದ ಪNಯನುU ಪaೕB ಾಂಕ:20-03-2018 ರಂದು Wೆೆದ ಾ.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: O R D E R (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