- 1 - WA No. 173 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT APPEAL NO. 173 OF 2021 (GM-SLUM) BETWEEN: SMT. M.NAGARATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.130, 6TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-560 003. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. NALEENA LOGAN, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE- 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 009. 3. KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD BANGALORE RASHILDAR STREET - 2 - WA No. 173 of 2021 SHESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE- 560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. B.S. MUNIYAPPA DEAD BY L.R'S 4. SHEKAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 5. JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 6. SOMESH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R-4 TO R-6 ARE SONS OF LATE B.S.MUNIYAPPA, AND RESIDENTS OF DOORVANI NAGAR, VIJINAPURA POST, K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE- 560 049. 7. DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR WLFARE ASSOCIATION JYOTHIPURA, BANGALORE- 560 016 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT/SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVTHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, SRI.M.P.SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4,R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, SRI. V.ANAND, ADVOCATE/CR/R7 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2020 IN W.P NO.35483/2014 (GM-SLUM) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. - 3 - WA No. 173 of 2021 THIS APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 20.08.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) Under challenge in the instant writ petition is the order dated 08.12.2020 passed in WP.No.35483/2014 (GM- SLUM) passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. Further relief is sought to set aside the Final Notification dated 04.06.2013, that was published in the gazette on 18.07.2013 and to quash the endorsement said to have been passed by respondent No.2 on 01.08.2012. 2. In the written notes submitted by the counsel for the appellant, it has been stated that the schedule property is service Inam land that was granted to original Barawardar of late Pillaga. The property came to be re- granted to his only Hakdar, that is Muniyappa, the father of appellant and the son of late Pillaga in the case No.HOA(S)48/68-69. There were conditions imposed by - 4 - WA No. 173 of 2021 the Assistant Commissioner while passing the orders with regard to the re-grant order. It is stated that certain constructions were made during the life time of late Muniyappa on the properties that were granted. The appellant succeeded to the schedule property through Will dated 29.04.1981. In the revenue records, the name of the appellant was mutated. The appellant filed an OS.No.10397/1991 against unauthorised occupants, who had encroached into the land of the appellant and put up their constructions. Accordingly, declaration and injunction was sought against the unauthorised occupants. 3. The appellant filed a suit bearing OS.No.4450/1991 against the Slum Clearance Board Karnataka and a gazetted KSACR seeking injunction against them from interfering in the schedule property. A Notification was issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 28.11.1991, which was gazetted on 16.01.1992. It is stated that no notice was served on the appellant but she appeared and filed her statement of objection. After an enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner passed orders that the - 5 - WA No. 173 of 2021 final notification shall be issued only after finalisation of suit pending before various Courts and after vacation of the interim order. In OS.No.1785/1991, permanent injunction on the schedule property was granted and the defendants were restrained from putting up any construction. OS.No.4450/1990-91 came to be decreed by an order restraining the respondent No.3 herein, undertaking any further development in the vacant land of 2 acres unless the land is declared as slum area as provided by the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973. In OS.No.10397/1991 the appellant was declared the owner of 17 guntas of a schedule property subject to the grant conditions against that order in the OS, the appellant preferred an appeal in RFA.No.815/2010. It appears that in the meanwhile, steps were taken by respondent No.2 for initiating proceedings pursuant to the preliminary notification, for issuing final notification by holding fresh enquiry in to the matter between the KSCB and the appellant and others. In that - 6 - WA No. 173 of 2021 proceeding, the respondent No.5 herein appeared before respondent No.2 and filed objections. 4. WP.No.6723/2012 was filed by the appellant challenging the preliminary notification. On 10.07.2012, WP.No.6723/2012 was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 5. The argument advanced is that when the previous writ petition of 2012 was dismissed on the ground of laches, a second writ petition challenging the preliminary notification would still be maintainable. A judgment in the case of Pujari Bai Vs. Madan Gopal1 has been relied upon in this regard. It is stated that therefore, the writ petition was maintainable and the order of a learned single Judge deserves to be set aside. 6. Constitutionality of Section 20 of the SLUM Act has also been impugned. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate has stated that the final notification was issued in the year 1 1989 AIR SC 1764 - 7 - WA No. 173 of 2021 1992 and thereafter, after a lapse of 21 years, the same was challenged before the learned single Judge by means of WP.No.35483/2014. 8. The learned Additional Government Advocate has contended that the preliminary notification was issued on 28.11.1991. It was notified in the Gazette on 16.01.1992 The appellant herein challenged the said Notification after lapse of nearly 20 years before this court in W.P.No.6723/2012, the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground of laches and delay. The said fact was completely suppressed before this Court and a subsequent writ petition was filed in WP.No.35483/2014 (GM/Slum). Even the original suit, which was filed by the appellant had been disposed of long prior to filing of the writ petition. Those facts were also suppressed by the appellant. The learned single Judge considered all these facts and rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches as well as resjudicata, so also suppression of the material facts. - 8 - WA No. 173 of 2021 9. The reasons assigned by the appellant challenging the impugned judgment are not tenable. Most of the grounds of writ petition as well as writ appeal are technical grounds and do not merit consideration. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing both the parties has passed the final Notification. Merely contending that the original files were not traceable cannot constitute a valid ground for not passing of the final notification or declaration. In the writ proceedings, except for the said ground, which was repeatedly stated, there are no other reasons for setting aside the preliminary Notification or the final Notification. The said facts were duly considered by the learned single Judge and the said finding do not call for any interference by this Court. 10. The learned Government advocate has further submitted that the appellant has suppressed filing of W.P.No.6723/2012, which was decided on 10.07.2012 and it was dismissed on the ground of laches and delay. He gave wrong information to the Court regarding pendency of RFA.No.284/2002. The learned single Judge has rightly - 9 - WA No. 173 of 2021 observed that appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands. The learned single Judge relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rightly held that writ petition was hit by the principle of rejudicata. This Court has already dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the impugned preliminary notification passed by the Deputy Commissioner under the Slum Board Act. In the present writ petition also, the petitioner/appellant has claimed the very same relief, in addition to that, he has also prayed to set aside the final Notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner. In view of the said reasons, the writ petition was not maintainable. The grounds of appeal are not tenable and with these reasons the learned Government Advocate prayed to dismiss the writ appeal. 11. We have heard the arguments. 12. The learned single Judge has reproduced the prayer column in the impugned order passed in the W.P.No.35483/2014. The main relief sought by the - 10 - WA No. 173 of 2021 appellant was the issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash the preliminary Notification dated 28.11.1991 and the final declaration dated 04.06.2013. Though this fact was suppressed by the appellant, respondent has produced copy of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.6723/2012 decided on 10.07.2012 (Annexure - R1) and perusal of Annexure-R1, the very same Notification dated 28.11.1991 was challenged in the W.P.No.6723 of 2012( GM-SLUM). The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, since it was filed after 21 years from the date of knowledge of the issuance of the preliminary Notification dated 28.11.1991. The said order passed in the W.P.No.6723/ 2012 dated 10.07.2012 attained finality and had not been challenged by the appellant herein in an appropriate forum. When the said writ petition was disposed of on merits, the appellant cannot once again file another writ petition challenging the very same preliminary Notification along with some other reliefs. Therefore, the learned single Judge on the facts circumstances of the instant case and also relying on the - 11 - WA No. 173 of 2021 basis of decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of principle of resjudicata. The said finding does not call for any interference by this Court. 13. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District vide Notification dated 28.11.1991 passed a preliminary Notification under Section 3 of Karnataka Slum Clearance Areas (Improvement and Clearness) Act 1973, Karnataka Act, 1974, (for short 'Act 1974'). The appellant herein filed objection to the said notification as per Annexure-C. The Deputy Commissioner has passed order as per Annexure-D dated 02.07.1996 after considering the objections of the appellant herein. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, vide order dated 02.07.1996, over-ruled the objections of appellant herein and ordered for issuance of final notification, exercising the powers confirmed on him under Section 3(1) (a) of the Act in respect of 1 acre 36 Guntas in Survey No.83. To protect the interest of appellant herein, the Deputy Commissioner has ordered that the final Notification shall - 12 - WA No. 173 of 2021 be issued only after the finalisation of suit pending before the various Civil Courts in O.S.Nos.10397/1991 and 1785/1991. 14. From the records, it appears that the original file was misplaced by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, thereafter, it appears, on the basis of available substituted copies of the materials, the Deputy Commissioner issued impugned Notification dated 04.06.2013, declaring the land of the appellant to the extent of 1 acre 36 guntas as a slum area under the provisions of the Act, 1974. As rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate, most of the grounds in the writ petition are pertaining to misplacing of the file and passing of the final Notification by the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the copies of records available on the file. It is also pertinent to note that appellant herein had filed objections to the Notification and after hearing both side parties, the Deputy Commissioner passed impugned final declaration under the Act, 1974. The petitioner has not addressed before the learned single - 13 - WA No. 173 of 2021 Judge as to the prejudice caused to her, by the passing of the orders on the basis of available copies of the materials in the file. Under the provisions of Act 1974, the Deputy Commissioner has authority to issue Notifications in the public interest under Section 3 of the Act, 1974. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the said finding. 15. The appellant had not approached this court with clean hands. She had suppressed the material facts regarding filing of the writ petition prior to the present writ petition and its dismissal on the ground of delay and laches. She has also suppressed that the suit filed by her, which was challenged before this court in Regular First Appeals, was dismissed long back for non prosecution. In addition, she gave a wrong case number before this Court and tried to procrastinate the proceedings. The respondent has produced the relevant materials in this regard and the learned single Judge considering these materials has rightly held that the appellant was guilty of suppressing of the material facts. The learned single Judge dismissed the - 14 - WA No. 173 of 2021 writ petition on the merits as well as on the ground of delay and laches and suppressing of the material facts, in addition to applying the principle of resjudicata. The said findings of the learned single Judge are not perverse, arbitrary or illegal. 16. The part of the land belonging to appellant has been acquired by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 17 of the Act 1974 (Chapter vi). The Deputy Commissioner has passed the preliminary Notification as well as the final notification in accordance with the law after hearing the appellant herein. Much was argued regarding filing of the original suits against persons who had illegally occupied and trespassed into the property belonging to the appellant. It is also pertinent to note that as per Section 18 of the Act, 1974, once the land is acquired by the Government it vests absolutely with the Government free from all encumbrances. The relief claimed in the said suits appears to be against the alleged encroachers, and Notifications were not subjects of the said suits. Hence, - 15 - WA No. 173 of 2021 findings in the said suit do not affect the authority of the Deputy Commissioner in issuing Notification. 17. The contentions taken in the written arguments filed by the appellant are different from grounds on which Notifications are challenged, in the writ proceedings. Section 17 of the Act or acquisition of the lands under the said Act is not under challenge. It was also not her case that, if acquisition of the land was under Section 17 of the Act, then she would receive, lesser amount of compensation payable under the Land acquisition Act 1894. Therefore, the judgments relied by the appellant are not relevant to the facts of present case. 18. On re-appreciation of the materials available on record, we are of the view that the learned single Judge has properly considered the contentions of both the parties and rightly arrived at the conclusion that writ petition deserved to be dismissed and accordingly, it was dismissed. We do not find any reasons to interfere in the said findings. - 16 - WA No. 173 of 2021 19. For the aforesaid discussions, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. The impugned order passed by the learned single Judge in WP.No.35483/2014 (GM/Slum) 08.12.2020 is confirmed. Pending I.As , if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG