L. Narayana Swamy, J.Petitioner claiming as the Educational Trust, made an application for grant of land for its activities. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, by its order dated 4th March 2004 has granted ten acres of land in Survey No. 7 and 8 of Shivanapura Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. On the basis of the land so granted, lease deed was executed on 6th March 2004. The Tahsildar, Bangalore North was directed to hand over possession of the land as per Annexure-D dated 16th March 2004. Though it was directed to hand over the land to the petitioner, physical possession of the land was not handed over and hence representations dated 10th June 2004, 17th March 2005, 5th July 2006 and 24th April 2009 as per Annexure-E to H have been made by the petitioner-Trust to the Deputy Commissioner with a request to hand over possession of the land. Without considering the representations made to the Deputy Commissioner requesting to hand over the land, the Deputy Commissioner, by its order dated 15th May 2010 in No. LND(N) CR 199/2003-04 cancelled the grant on the ground that the petitioner-Trust has violated the condition stipulated in the grant in not utilizing the land within the period of two years from the date of grant. Further, by its order dated 26th May 2010, the land has been handed over to Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "RGRHCL" for short), to utilize the land for houseless and site-less persons in Bangalore. The impugned orders dated 15th May 2010 and 26th May 2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "LG Rules" for short) was challenged in Writ Petition No. 17694 of 2010 (KLR-LG) and the same came to be dismissed on 17th January 2011. The grounds urged in the said writ petition were that the provisions of LG Rules was made applicable to the case of the petitioner-Trust and hence the same are ultra vires since the grant was made in the year 2004 when amendment was not brought. Secondly, three months notice, stipulated under the lease agreement, is not complied with. Arbitration clause has not been invoked; the prayers of the petitioners have been negatived, etc. The Writ petition came to be dismissed. Against the said order, Writ Appeal in No. 1476 of 2011 was preferred and the same was allowed by order dated 16th June 2011 reserving liberty to the respondent to initiate fresh proceedings against the Trust, if they are so advised, as it is mandatory to give three months notice to the petitioner. In compliance of the order in the Writ Appeal, the Deputy Commissioner initiated proceedings and again cancelled the grant made in favour of the petitioner by order dated 10th October, 2011. Challenging the said order, the present petition is filed.

2. The petitioner has taken a ground that during pendency of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, he permitted the impleading applicants to come on record as Respondents No. 3 to 11, all the action of the Deputy Commissioner is illegal and arbitrary since they were not proper and necessary parties. The second ground taken is that the consideration of the case of the petitioner in cancelling the grant is by invoking sub-rules (2) and (5) of Rule 19 of the LG Rules and both the amended Rules came into force only from 22nd May 2005, whereas the grant was made on 4th March 2004. The conditions stipulated under the amended Rules could not have been made applicable to the petitioners case, since the amendment was not retrospective in nature. Hence the impugned action of the Deputy Commissioner in rejecting the case of the petitioner-Trust under the provisions of the amended Rules is violative and contrary to law. The third ground urged is in rejecting the grant on the ground that the petitioner has not utilized the land within two years, as under Clause 7 of the grant dated 4th March 2004, the land itself has not been handed over to the Trust despite several representations and hence rejecting the grant on the ground of non-utilisation of the land within two years, is arbitrary. The impugned order is resulting in non-application of mind since at the first instance, the case was rejected on the ground of non-utilizing the granted land within two years and on the second occasion also was rejected bringing the case of the petitioner under Rule 19(5)(i) and (ii) of the LG Rules. In addition to the grounds taken in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Clause 26 of the lease agreement contemplates that dispute or differences, if any, between the Government or their officers and the Trust with regard to the lease or the construction or the meaning of all or any of the provisions, the same shall be referred to arbitration for settlement. But in the instant case, the said Clause has not been operated. Hence, the cancellation is in violation of the lease agreement entered into between the parties. Clause 23 of the lease agreement further require 3 months notice in writing and since without issuing such notice the cancellation has been made, the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 1476 of 2011 for issuance of notice, as the same is substantial in character, has not been complied and no notices have been issued, as was directed in the appeal. The impleading applicants before the Deputy Commissioner were in respect of survey No. 7 and 8 and other extent of land. However, it was directed to form layout for the purpose of impleading applicants in respect of the land granted to the petitioner-Trust. Hence, what was sought by the impleading applicants has been granted by the Deputy Commissioner. For formation of sites to the houseless and weaker sections, Rule 18-A of the LG Rules provides to float the scheme for the said purpose, but without framing any scheme, under the said provision, the land granted to the petitioner-Trust is sought to be given to them.

3. On behalf of the Government, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner is in accordance with the grant and lease agreement and hence there is no violation. Clause 7 of the Grant order, dated 4th March 2004 mandates the petitioner-Trust to utilize the land within two years, but the same has not been utilized within the time stipulated and thereafter the grant was cancelled. The land was sought to be given as house sites to the weaker sections and the working class, and as per Clause 5 of the grant, the Government can cancel the same without any notice to the parties. As per the order passed in the Writ Appeal No. 1476 of 2011, notice was issued, the Counsel has represented the petitioner-Trust by filing vakalat, but he has not filed any objection to the notice. He has produced only the copy of the Trust deed, annual statement of accounts and thereafter, totally he has not contested the case.

4. On behalf of Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Ltd, the ground taken is to some extent to that of the ground urged by the Government Pleader. It is submitted that in respect of the representations dated 10th June 2004, 17th March 2005, 5th July 2006 and 23rd April 2009 as per Annexure-E to H, none of the representations were made to the Deputy Commissioner and these representations do not bear the acknowledgement for having received the same and the representations made are only to seek further extension of time to grab the government land. Notices were issued to the address mentioned in the lease deed and the same could not be served since the petitioner is not residing in the said address. In fact, the Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 10th October 2011 has made reference to the report of the Tahsildar that, "the Trust is not functioning at the address furnished by it while seeking the land on lease basis". After the land is transferred to the RGRHCL for forming of sites, notices were issued and thereafter it was found that in the address given, a finance company in the name and style of "Parineetha Enterprises" was in existence for the past several years and the neighbours are not aware of the functioning of the Trust in the said address. Three months notice, as provided in the lease agreement and as observed in the Writ Appeal No. 1476 of 2011, was dispensed with in view of the directions issued in the writ appeal to the parties. Even after the notice was issued, the petitioner-Trust did not defend its case and no statement was filed and materials were produced. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel submits to dismiss the petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. At an earlier instance, the land granted to the petitioner-Trust on 4th March 2004 was cancelled, since the same was not utilized within two years as was stipulated under condition No. 7 of the grant order dated 4th March 2004. The ground urged by petitioner-Trust in the petition for not utilizing the same is that the land was not handed over to the petitioner and hence expecting the petitioner-Trust to utilize the land within two years is arbitrary and erroneous. This ground is unfounded and liable to be rejected for the reason that after the grant was made, lease was executed between the parties and direction was issued to the Tahsildar on 16th March 2004 to handover the land to the petitioner-Trust. The presumption that could be drawn from this letter is that the land has been handed over to the petitioner-Trust for its utilization; the entire amount was paid by the petitioner-Trust, since June 2004 till April 2009 representations were made to the Deputy Commissioner requesting him to hand over the possession of the land in an extent of ten acres to the petitioner-Trust for its utilization. But, these representations do not bear any acknowledgement for having received the same and the petitioner-Trust also has not come forward as to whether it has initiated any legal proceedings in handing over the property. Hence, these representations cannot be conceded to as if the petitioner-Trust had made request for handing over the possession. Quite contrary to these representations, in the representation made on 26th October 2009, which has been incorporated in the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 10th October 2011 wherein it has been stated that "as per the order of the land grant dated 22nd April 2004, five acres out of ten acres has been taken possession and in respect of the remaining five acres villagers are obstructing and the same has been informed to the police. Since the petitioner-Trust is facing financial constraints, remaining extent of land has not been taken possession and shortly they would make attempt to secure the remaining five acres." This representation goes quite contrary to the grounds taken in the petition wherein it is stated that the petitioner has not been given the possession of ten acres. Hence, the insistence for utilization of the land within two years is not an arbitrary one. When the grounds urged in the petition are contrary to the materials available on record, viz. representation dated 26th October 2009, inference could be dawn that the petitioner-Trust has not made out legal and valid grounds in support of the prayer made. It is clear from the first order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 15th May 2010 that the petitioner-Trust has not utilized any extent of land. When such being the observation of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner-Trust while approaching this Court seeking for extraordinary relief, should have stated as to whether it has utilized the lands and whether it is carrying on its educational activities at least on the five acres, which according to the petitioner-Trust, they are in possession. In Writ Petition No. 17694 of 2010 referred to supra also at paragraph 12 of the judgment similar reasons are assigned to the effect that "if the petitioner also not having pleaded in the averments before this Court even in the writ petition with regard to its present activity or manner in which the orders affected, it is not necessary for this court to interfere in any and every petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, merely because the petitioner is able to show some technical defect in the procedure. Though want of opportunity is a very important aspect and should normally vitiate any order on that premise, if the order has vitally affected the interest of a person, in the present case, I find that there is need to disturb the impugned orders on this ground, for the reason that the petitioner has not even made out any bona fide case for grant of relief in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court and therefore I am not inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner for interfering with the orders at Annexure-A and B." When a party seeks equity, he should make out a valid ground. Merely challenging the order on technical ground, itself, is not sufficient for this Court to grant relief. He should place all the materials before this Court in the petition as to what he could have done had he been given three months notice. Granting three months notice is not a substantial relief; it is only a technical and formal relief. Substantial relief would be whether he has made prompt attempt to secure the entire extent of land immediately and whether has utilized the same within the time stipulated in the grant order. If the petitioner-Trust is an educational institution, whether educational activities are going on to any extent. From the order of the Deputy Commissioner till the order of this court referred to supra consistently the petitioner-Trust was asked and to state whether the land granted for the purpose was utilized for the said purpose. Even in the present case, the petitioner-Trust has not made available any materials. Hence the said ground also is not available for the petitioner-Trust.

6. The another attack of the petitioner-Trust challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner in handing over the land to Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited by order dated 26th May 2010, would be dealt later.

7. As per the order passed in the Writ Appeal No. 1476 of 2011, notice was issued on 13th July 2011 calling upon the appellant to present its case in the matter with particulars and information with regard to its extension at least five years prior to making of their application for release as required under Rule 19(5)(i) of the LG Rules and the audited annual statement of account of the petitioner-Trust. Though it is stated by the petitioner-Trust that the said clause to the LG Rules came by way of amendment subsequent to the grant, notwithstanding the same, the petitioner-Trust should have placed materials to the effect that they are running school or conducting educational activities much prior to the land grant. The learned counsel representing the petitioner-Trust filed only three documents, viz. copy of the registered Trust Deed dated 18th September 2000, Audit Reports for the period 2004-2011 and copies of resolutions of the Trust from the year 2000 till date. These documents were not required by the Deputy Commissioner in his Notice dated 13th July 2011. It is submitted by the learned counsel that notices were not issued to the petitioner-Trust but quite contrary to the same, the report of the Tahsildar, in spite of notice dated 6th May 2010 though was issued but returned with a remark that "no such address". The Tahsildar report further states that the petitioner-Trust is not functioning in the address given in the Trust deed. When such serious allegation is made against the petitioner-Trust, it should have taken serious note of the same by producing materials to prove that it is carrying on business in the said address. The same has not been done. In the statement of objections filed by the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited, it is stated that notices issued to the petitioners were returned and when they went to the spot it was found that "Parineetha Enterprises", a Finance Company is running in the said address and on enquiring the neighbours, they reacted that no such Trust is functioning there. Basically and primarily, the petitioner-Trust should have placed materials about the Trust whether is functioning or not in the said address before the Deputy Commissioner or before this Court in the writ petition. The petitioner-Trust is silent and suppressed these facts and virtually it is nothing but hiding the real fact, which is treated by this Court as the petitioner-Trust has not approached the Court with clean hands. Exercising discretion, which is extraordinary in nature based on equity, shall not be given to the petitioner-Trust for these serious lapses.

8. The ground urged by the petitioner-Trust that the action of the Deputy Commissioner in allowing the impleading applications by permitting them to come on record is illegal and contrary to law because the proceedings are initiated against the petitioner-Trust under the provisions of LG Rules, is unfounded. From the materials, it is seen that when the case was pending on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, after cancellation of grant on 15th May 2010 and 26th May 2010, applications were made by the persons who were the petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 20897-20894 of 2009 and other batch of 4-5 writ petitions wherein about hundreds of petitions filed were disposed of by allowing their prayer for a direction to the concerned authority to consider their prayer for unauthorized occupation of land by putting up constructions in different survey numbers. When the orders in the writ petition were binding, before the Deputy Commissioner those petitioners knowing about the cancellation of the grant made by the Deputy Commissioner in survey No. 7 and 8, thereafter got impleaded by making application and urged the Deputy Commissioner to consider the direction of the Court for granting the said land for forming a layout and for allotment of sites to them since they belong to the weaker sections of the society. I do not find that by allowing the said application the Deputy Commissioner has committed any illegality contrary to law. Except stating that the action of the Deputy Commissioner is illegal and contrary to law, the petitioner has not stated as to which provision of law is contravened by the Deputy Commissioner in allowing the impleading application. As the impleading applicants, who are the petitioners before this Court in a batch of writ petitions, have themselves stated that they are socially and economically poor, daily wagers doing menial jobs and they do not have any place to reside and hence they made application to the Deputy Commissioner to regularize, by way of grant, some lands to them, the cases of this nature has a paramount consideration of the Government, since it is a constitutional mandate.

9. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Union of India, held that "the King is the protector of all citizens and as being in the position of "Parens Patriae" imposes the duty on the sovereign, in public interest, to protect persons under disability who have no rightful protector. The great poet Kalidasa, through King Dushyanta, the hero of one of his greatest works "Shakuntala" says that "if there is any one in the Kingdom who has no relative, inform him that the King is his relative". The persons, who filed impleading applications before the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Writ petition before this Court, are the persons who are socially, economically poor and dalits, whose interest is supposed to be protected by the State under the provisions of the Constitution.

10. This Court and the Honble Supreme Court in catena of decisions have held that as per Article 21 of the Constitution "right to shelter" is a fundamental right of the citizen. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Shantistar Builders Vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame and others, has observed thus:

9. Basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be three - food, clothing and shelter. The right to life is guaranteed in any civilized society. That would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal it is the bare protection of the body; for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation which would allow him to grow in every aspect - physical, mental and intellectual. The Constitution aims at ensuring fuller development of every child. That would be possible only if the child is in a proper home. ....

11. In the case of Chameli Singh and others etc. Vs. State of U.P. and another, it is observed thus:

8. In any organised society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man. It is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is freed from restrictions which inhibit his growth. All human rights are designed to achieve this object Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. These are basic human rights known to any civilised society. All civil, political, social and cultural rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Convention or under the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without these basic human rights. Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not a mere protection of his life and limb. It is home where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere right to a roof over ones head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and develop as a human being. Right to shelter when used as an essential requisite to the right to live should be deemed to have been guaranteed as a fundamental right. As is enjoined in the Directive Principles, the State should be deemed to be under at obligation to secure it for its citizens, of course subject to its economic budgeting. In a democratic society as a member of the organised civic community one should have permanent shelter so as to physically, mentally and intellectually equip oneself to improve his excellence as a useful citizen as enjoined in the Fundamental Duties and to be a useful citizen and equal participant in democracy. The ultimate object of making a man equipped with a right to dignity of person and equality of status is to enable him to develop himself into a cultured being. Want of decent residence, therefore, frustrates the very object of the constitutional animation of right to equality, economic justice, fundamental right to residence, dignity of person and right to live itself. To bring the Dalits and Tribes into the mainstream of national life, providing these facilities and opportunities to them is the duty of the State as fundamental to their basic human and constitutional rights.

12. In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and others, in the context of eviction of encroachers in a busy locality of Ahmadabad city, the court said:

Due to want of facilities and opportunities, the right to residence and settlement is an illusion to the rural and urban poor. Articles 38, 39 and 46 mandate the State, as its economic policy, to provide socio-economic justice to minimise inequalities in income and in opportunities and status. It positively charges the State to distribute its largesse to the weaker sections of the society envisaged in Article 46 to make socio-economic justice a reality, meaningful and fruitful so as to make life worth living with dignity of person and equality of status and to constantly improve excellence.

13. On the similar lines, in Olga Tellis and Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, the Honble Supreme Court held that the right to life included the right to livelihood. In Indra Sawhney etc. etc Vs. Union of India and others, etc. etc., the Supreme Court has clarified that the expression "weaker sections" of the people is wider than the expression "backward class" of citizens, which is only a part of the weaker sections. Backward classes comprise only those, which are socially or economically backward. The term weaker section does not necessarily refer to a group or a class, it connotes all sections of the society which are rendered weaker due to various causes, viz., poverty, natural calamity or physical handicap.

14. In the case of Consumer Education and Research center and others Vs. Union of India and others, the Honble Supreme Court has held that right to shelter would mean and include the right to livelihood, a better standard of living, hygienic conditions in the work place and leisure.

15. The Honble Supreme Court again in the case of D.S. Nakara and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), had held that "Constitutionality of legislative or administrative action should be examined in the context of Preamble to the Constitution and the Directive Principles of State Policy." The judgment further strengthens the case of the respondent State by clarifying the position that when the constitutional obligations are initiated, naturally and automatically the legislative and administrative actions stop its proceeding by giving way to the constitutional right.

16. Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provide that the right to adequate housing has been codified and other National Human Rights. Article 11.1 of the International Covenant on Economical, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESC) provides that "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions." These weaker sections are entitled, as a matter of right, under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(c) and paragraph 4 of Articles 39 and 46 of the Constitution of India and in the light of interpretation made by the Honble Supreme Court specially in the light of the provisions of International Human Rights and other covenants and it is a pious and constitutional obligation on the part of the State, to provide shelter to the weaker sections.

17. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in allowing the impleading application filed by the respondents who were the petitioners before this Court in a batch of petitions, and passing an order handing over the land which was allotted in favour of the Trust to Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited on 26th May 2010 is in accordance with the provisions of the constitutional mandate and it is neither illegal nor contrary to any provisions of law. When an action is initiated bearing in mind the concept of social justice as in preamble to the Constitution and the provisions of Directive Principles of State Policy, the fundamental rights coupled with right to shelter prevails over the legislative and administrative actions. Clause 7 of the grant made in favour of the petitioner which specifically states that when the land is required for public, then liberty is reserved to the respondent-Deputy Commissioner to cancel the grant without any notice. Whereas, in the instant case though notices were sent, the same could not be served on the petitioner since the petitioner was not residing in the address given in the lease agreement and in the said address, other than the petitioner, some other finance company, i.e. "Parineetha Enterprises" was carrying on its business and the petitioner also failed to furnish any material, which only gives scope to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief at the hands of this Court by exercising its discretion under equity and extraordinary jurisdiction.

18. Right to shelter cannot be looked only through the persons who make application for grant of housing site as a matter of right, the same has to be looked through the succeeding generation, specially childrens right. A Childs right is to be brought up in a safe environment. The right to housing and security are interconnected. While poor housing condition affects the health, homelessness and frequent displacement are prone to impair the childs learning. Though housing remains as fundamental as food and security, the issue has not yet received the priority it deserves. The National Human Rights council emphasizes that the current housing crisis can be addressed effectively, only when it is acknowledged as a human right.

19. In the light of the above discussions and reasons, it is to be held that the action of the Deputy Commissioner in allowing the impleading application is proper and is not violative of any provisions of law and Deputy Commissioner has not committed any illegality. By the time applications were made before the Deputy Commissioner, already there were directions issued by this Court in a batch of writ petitions to consider the application for regularization of unauthorized occupation for putting up construction. Hence, the ground urged is answered in the negative. In view of the above reasons, it is to be held that the petitioner has not made out any ground before this Court to interfere with the order of the Deputy Commissioner and to seek equatorial and extraordinary relief from this Court. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed and the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 10th October 2011 cancelling the grant made in favour of the petitioner and handing over the land to Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited under Rule 18-A of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, is confirmed. By exercising power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, a direction is issued to the Deputy Commissioner and to Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited to complete their obligation in forming the layout on the land and allotting the same to the members of weaker sections in a time-bound manner. It is to be noticed that developmental works in Urban areas like putting up a fly-over, asphalting roads and construction of Public Utility Buildings are carried on in a time-bound manner. Whereas in the cases of this nature, especially putting up a shelter to the people who are displaced, flood victims, and homeless persons of weaker sections, normally there will not be any outer limit stipulated as a matter of time-bound action. Hence, six months time is granted to Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order to form a layout and allot the same to the weaker sections. The Deputy Commissioner is further directed to ascertain genuineness of the claimants before allotment. With these directions, the petition stands dismissed.