[Karnataka Prohibition Of Beggary Act] Central Relief Committee Kept 'Pot Of Litigation Boiling' For 7 Yrs Instead Of Rehabilitating Slum Dwellers: High Court
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Central Relief Committee constituted under the Karnataka Prohibition of Beggary Act, 1975, questioning an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, declaring a particular area possessed by it, to be a slum.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the plea said “The Central Relief Committee has...
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Central Relief Committee constituted under the Karnataka Prohibition of Beggary Act, 1975, questioning an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, declaring a particular area possessed by it, to be a slum.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the plea said “The Central Relief Committee has kept the pot of litigation boiling for the last 7 years and no rehabilitation of the slum dwellers has taken place. If a major portion of the land had been taken away, it would have been a circumstance altogether different, which is not the one in the case at hand. Therefore, the challenge is rendered unsustainable.”
It added, “The Board shall now endeavour to rehabilitate the slum dwellers of the area, without brooking any further delay.”
The petitioner argued that the Court had rejected the writ petition filed by an unauthorized occupant who went up to the Apex Court where also no relief was granted to the said occupant who was one of the slum dwellers in the area.
Further, it was submitted that in a public interest litigation, a coordinate bench of the Court had also directed the effective implementation of the provisions of the Karnataka Prohibition of Beggary Act, 1975.
The counsel for the slum dweller contended that the petitioner was only a Central Relief Committee constituted under the Act and had no locus to maintain the writ petition.
It was argued that the rehabilitation of slum dwellers was equally important, as that of rehabilitation of beggars.
One wing of the State wants to fight against the other wing and in the dispute between the two, the slum dwellers are caught for several years by way of interim order operating in the case at hand, it was argued.
The bench noted that the land that is granted for the rehabilitation of beggars was conceived pre-independence. It observed that in the year 1944, 311 acres of land had been granted by the then State of Mysore, which now came within the Yeswanthpur Hobli.
Court noted that out of the said land, 63 acres were granted to beggars as a rehabilitation centre. Subsequently, the beggars rehabilitation centre leased the said land to Sumanahalli Leprosy Patients Rehabilitation Centre.
It was found that the Deputy Commissioner/ex-officio Chairman or his nominee of the Central Relief Committee was also in the loop of the lease, and it was deemed that he was aware of the lease and terms coming to an end in the year 2007.
The Court also refused to accept previous orders passed by a coordinate bench against an unauthorised occupant operated as a bar against all others and said “if some unauthorised occupant has lost his claim, it is in personam. It cannot be painted to every situation and to every slum dweller.”
Court said that the state was statutorily empowered to declare an area as a slum. It said that the rehabilitation of beggars was imperative, but the rehabilitation of slum dwellers cannot take a back seat.
Thus it held that no fault could be found with the action of the State to declare the area of 27 acres by the impugned proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner.
Reiterating that the state is empowered to declare an area as a slum, the court said, “effective rehabilitation of slum dwellers would come within the Slum Development Board, another wing of the State. One wing of the State fighting against the other wing has led to poor slum dwellers caught in the cross-fire who have not seen the light of the day of getting the houses constructed.”
Then it remarked that while the State had a dispute resolution mechanism in place to resolve the dispute between any departments, the Central Relief Committee chose to litigate instead.
Accordingly, it rejected the plea.
Appearance: Senior Advocate H.Kantharaja, for petitioner.
HCGP Kiran Kumar, for respondent No.1.
Advocate M.P. Srikanth, for R2.
Advocate Clifton D. Rozario, for R3.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 69
Case Title: Central Relief Committee AND Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru District & Others
Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.55797 OF 2017