Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Pachamma, a 68-year-old widowed senior citizen belonging to the Scheduled Caste, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the State of Karnataka and other respondents to restore her possession of House No.254, Indira Harijana Seva Sangha, New Byappanahalli, Indiranagar, Bangalore. The house was originally allotted to her family by the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board (now Karnataka Slum Development Board) around 1980. To meet her son's medical expenses, she borrowed Rs.30,000 from respondent No.5, S. Karunakaran, a local money-lender, who actually gave only Rs.25,000. She repaid the entire amount with interest within six months, but Karunakaran demanded more money and harassed her. She paid an additional Rs.30,000, but he then demanded Rs.2.5 lakhs more. When she could not pay, he forcibly threw her and her belongings out of the house and took possession around May 2008, also snatching her property documents. She made representations to the police, Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, Karnataka Slum Development Board, and Elders' Helpline, but no action was taken. The court noted that the petitioner is a senior citizen and a widow, abandoned by her son, and that the police have a duty to maintain law and order. The court held that the police cannot remain mute spectators to such illegal acts and directed the Station House Officer of Byappanahalli Police Station to restore possession of the house to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The court also directed the Karnataka Slum Development Board to provide necessary assistance to the police. The writ petition was allowed in these terms.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Police Duty - Forcible Dispossession - The petitioner, a widowed senior citizen belonging to Scheduled Caste, was forcibly dispossessed from her house allotted by the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board by a money-lender. Despite complaints to police, human rights commission, and slum board, no action was taken. The High Court held that the police have a duty to maintain law and order and cannot remain mute spectators to such illegal acts. The court directed the police to restore possession to the petitioner within four weeks. (Paras 1-4) B) Property Law - Right to Property - Forcible Dispossession - Restoration of Possession - The court observed that the petitioner's possession, even if unauthorized, cannot be disturbed except by due process of law. The forcible dispossession by the money-lender was illegal. The court directed the police to put the petitioner back in possession of the house. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court can direct the police to restore possession of a house to a petitioner who was forcibly dispossessed by a private individual, when the petitioner has no alternative efficacious remedy and the police have failed to act on her complaints.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The Station House Officer, Byappanahalli Police Station is directed to restore the possession of the house bearing No.254, Indira Harijana Seva Sangha, New Byappanahalli, Indiranagar, Bangalore to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Karnataka Slum Development Board is directed to render necessary assistance to the police in this regard.
Law Points
- Writ of mandamus
- Article 226
- Article 227
- right to property
- forcible dispossession
- police duty to maintain law and order
- restoration of possession
- senior citizen
- Scheduled Caste
- Karnataka Slum Clearance Board allotment
