'The Haves Stop Despoiling Rights Of Have-Nots': Manual Scavenger's Dispossessed Widow Gets Land With House After Karnataka High Court Intervenes

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Nagamma and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the respondents for driving the petitioner to unnecessary litigation, and ignoring her request/representations for re-allotment of land.

The bench observed “The haves stop despoiling the rights of have-nots; the haves, I mean, those who have power.”

The Panchayat Development Officer, Doddabelavangala Panchayat, is also to pay an additional cost of Rs 50,000 to the woman, towards the cost of the litigation. Further, it has directed the authorities that the possession that is granted during the pendency of the petition shall not be disturbed.

The petitioner, widow of a manual scavenger who was put to death due to the act of the 3rd respondent (Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board) gave representations in 2011 to rehabilitate her and her family members since they were all dependent on the income derived from the scavenging activity of her husband. Rehabilitation was not acceded to immediately after the death of the husband, which drove the petitioner to knock at the doors of the Court in the year 2011.

After orders from the court, in the year 2012 a site was allotted to the petitioner and the entries concerning the site were changed in favour of the petitioner. Even after passage of time, the petitioner could not construct the house due to lack of funds. In the year 2022, the 6th respondent/Panchayat Development Officer, noticing the fact that the petitioner had not constructed any house despite passage of nine years, after allotment of the site, took over the site.

The petitioner gave a plethora of representations seeking re-allotment of site in her favour and the 6 th respondent/Panchayat Development Officer indicated to the Tahsildar regarding such re-allotment. Even then no allotment was made.

Following which she approached the court, ironically her petition was given the same writ petition number after 11 years—WP 21320 OF 2022.

The State government and panchayat officer defended the action submitting that Petitioner did not construct the house and, therefore, it was taken away from her. No fault can be found for such an action.

During the hearing of the petition the court passed an order directing concerned authorities to show cause as to why a site that was granted on the death of the husband of the petitioner was taken away contrary to law.

After seeking several adjournments, the 5th respondent (Tashildar) identified a plot and restored possession to the petitioner within 4 days. Finally time was sought up to 09-02- 2023 to set the wrong, right.

Noting this the bench said “In one week’s time the wrong was set right, petitioner was restored possession of a property which contains a house. This could have been done without the petitioner knocking at the doors of this Court. If it could be done within one week on this Court questioning the action, the action could have been taken without such questioning by this Court. Therefore, it is the lack of will and display of apathy towards poor citizens by the powers that be.”

Further it said “The petitioner would be entitled to financial assistance and also costs of the litigation, as the State has driven a Scheduled Caste lady to knock at the doors of this Court for the second time on their sheer attitude of demonstrating power over the under powered. It is because the petitioner knocked at the doors of this Court she was restored with possession of plot despite vehement objections put up by the 6th respondent as quoted supra that the petition should be dismissed contending that she has no right.”

Referring to Section 13(1)(c) of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, the bench said “ It is not enough under the Act, if a plot is allotted in furtherance of a rehabilitation in terms of 13(1)(c) of the Act to a manual scavenger. Grant of financial assistance is imperative and there are several other benefits that any manual scavenger who is prohibited from that work gets in terms of the Act.”

The bench held that “The situation in the case at hand is worse. The husband of the petitioner who was a manual scavenger dies due to manual scavenging, an act which was clearly prohibited on the date on which the husband of the petitioner died. Therefore, it was the responsibility of the respondents not only to have allotted the plot, but to have granted financial assistance.”

It added “Section 13 mandates such financial assistance to persons who have been rehabilitated on prohibiting manual scavenging and to the family of such manual scavenger who dies during such dehumanising job.”

Thus it directed “The petitioner shall also be granted all such financial assistance and benefits that would flow from Section 13 of the Act. The respondents/State, particularly 2nd and 4th respondents, shall oversee that all the benefits under the Act qua Section 13 are conferred upon the petitioner and not drive her to another round of litigation.”

Case Title: Nagamma And State of Karnataka

Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.21320 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (kar) 68

Date of Order: 16-02-2023

Appearance: Advocate Shilpa Prasad for petitioner.

AGA B.V.Krishna For R1,2,4,

Advocate M S Devaraj for R6.