CHANDRA BAL Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGLORE SICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, petitioners have sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the 1" respondent dated 8. 10. 1998 - annexure-E and to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 4 to restore status quo ante in respect of the petitioners' property and to pay damages and also to direct the 7th respondent / CBI to take up investigation in the matter and to bring the guilty to books.

(2.) ACCORDING to the 1st petitioner, they were said to be in possession of property bearing No. 174/2 measuring 30 x 40 ft. situate at Cottonpet Main Road, Bangalore exercising the act of ownership from the past several years. The said property was earlier in the possession of his predecessor in interest namely one yelloji Rao and on his death, the petitioner continued with the possession and his father was carrying on the business in the name and style of Lakshmi Furniture Works and then as an electrical contractor and later, a provision stores.

(3.) SIMILARLY, the 2nd petitioner also was in possession of the adjoining property at 174/3 measuring 30 x 40 ft. In that, 2nd petitioner was carrying on the scrap business besides bottle cleaning and gunny bags dealing. By virtue of a notification 3. 3. 1989, 14 guntas of the Chaltha number 90 was declared as slum area exercising power under S. 3 of the Slum (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1974, The notification was called in question by one Muniswamy and others in WP 20988/1989 and connected matters and this Court by order dated 8. 10. 1998, quashed the said notification and remanded the matter back to the 1st respondent with a direction to conduct a joint enquiry and to take appropriate action in respect of the entire extent of land including the 14 % guntas of land. After the matter was remanded, the 1st respondent without ascertaining as to the actual possession and without notifying the occupants, having concluded the enquiry, declared 141/4 guntas out of 1 acre as slum area. Thereafter, the 2nd and 3rd respondent colluding with each other, on 4. 4. 2001 employed the services of Policemen and without any prior notice, demolished the properties of the petitioners without even giving an opportunity for removing the articles and also petitioners were not permitted to take photos of the demolition process. Thereafter, on verification it was learnt that the 1st respondent in exercise of his powers had directed the eviction in respect of 25 % guntas of land out of 1 acre in Chalta Number 90 and to hand over the same to the owners of the land. Hence, this petition challenging the order made at annexure-E and for such other relief as noted above.