Case Note & Summary
Background: The petitioner, a central government employee, purchased a residential property in Doddanekundi, Bengaluru, in 2005 from Dr. Suryakumar Sharma, who had obtained a plan sanction in 1995-96. The site was part of a layout approved by the HA Sanitary Board in 1991. After purchase, the petitioner obtained an electricity connection in 2006 and resided there. In April 2013, she lodged an FIR reporting a break-in and theft of electricity meter. Respondent No.7, Saghir Ahmed, claiming ownership over the property in Sy.No.88, initiated civil suits against the petitioner. O.S. No.26414/2013 sought an injunction restraining interference, and an ex parte status quo order was vacated on 21.11.2013 after contest. Respondent No.7 also filed O.S. No.7737/2013 on 23.10.2013, obtaining an ex parte injunction on 26.10.2013, but later withdrew the suit on 5.12.2013. Meanwhile, BBMP officials issued a notice under Section 308 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 on 22.10.2013, requiring production of documents. The petitioner's husband delivered documents to the Junior Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer on 25.11.2013, but no acknowledgment was given initially. The petitioner contended that a notice dated 18.11.2013 under Section 321(1) and (2) was dispatched only on 28.11.2013, as per the postal receipt, and that the provisional order was confirmed by the AEE on 29.11.2013 without providing her an opportunity to respond. She alleged the notice was backdated and served to an incomplete address, and thus she never received it. When she visited the BBMP office on 30.11.2013, she obtained an acknowledgment of documents submitted, but the officials did not disclose the confirmatory order. The petitioner further argued that respondent No.7 was aware of the confirmatory order dated 29.11.2013, as evidenced by a caveat sent to her on 3.12.2013, indicating collusion between the BBMP officers and the private respondent to demolish her house illegally. The impugned order of the BBMP Commissioner dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure-A) was also challenged. The petitioner sought a declaration that the demolition was illegal, restoration of her dwelling house, compensation of Rs. One Crore, or alternatively Rs.35 lakhs for reconstruction, Rs.20 lakhs for theft/damage, and rent reimbursement. She also prayed for action against BBMP officials for disobedience of constitutional and statutory provisions, investigation into money flows, and a general enquiry into collusion with real estate mafia. Legal issues framed by the petitioner included violation of natural justice, failure to follow the mandatory procedure under Sections 308 and 321 of the KMC Act, backdating of notices, and the absence of a proper opportunity to be heard before demolition. The Court heard the petitioner party-in-person and counsel for respondents. The matter was reserved for orders on 13.12.2023 and pronounced on 12.02.2024. The provided excerpt details only the reliefs sought and the factual narrative up to the point where the petitioner met BBMP officials again on 7.12.2013; the court’s reasoning and final decision are not included in the excerpt. Hence, the operative directions and the ratio decidendi are not ascertainable from the furnished text.
Issue of Consideration
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (02) 30
WP No. 20056 of 2019 (LB-BMP)
Kavita Podwal (party-in-person), Sarita Kulkarni (for R1 to R6), H.E. Ramesh (for R7)
1. The BBMP, 2. The Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura Zone, BBMP, 3. The Executive Engineer, Hoodi Subzone, BBMP, 4. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Hoodi Subzone, BBMP, 5. The Assistant Engineer for Ward 85, Hoodi Subzone, BBMP, 6. Deputy Director Town Planning, Mahadevapura Zone, BBMP, 7. Shri Saghir Ahmed
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the demolition of her dwelling house was illegal, restoration of the house, compensation, and quashing of the BBMP Commissioner's order dated 24.01.2018.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought (a) declaration of illegal demolition, (b) restoration of house and dignity, (c) compensation of Rs. One Crore, (d) quashing of order dated 24.01.2018, (e) restoration of house, (f) alternative compensation of Rs.35 lakhs for construction, (g) Rs.20 lakhs for theft/damage, (h) rent reimbursement of Rs.8 lakhs, (i) action against the Commissioner to ensure compliance with law, (j) stringent action against BBMP officials for disobedience, (k) investigation into money flow from respondent No.7, (l) enquiry into role of BBMP and police collusion with real estate mafia.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's dwelling house was demolished by BBMP officials allegedly without following the procedure under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, at the behest of respondent No.7 who had filed civil suits against her. The notices were claimed to be backdated and not properly served, and the confirmatory order was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing.
Previous Decisions
Prior civil suits filed by respondent No.7: O.S. No.26414/2013 (injunction against petitioner) — ex parte status quo vacated on 21.11.2013; O.S. No.7737/2013 (suit withdrawn on 5.12.2013). BBMP issued notice under Section 308 on 22.10.2013, followed by notice under Section 321(1) and (2) dated 18.11.2013 but dispatched on 28.11.2013, and confirmatory order dated 29.11.2013. The BBMP Commissioner's order dated 24.01.2018 was impugned as Annexure-A.
Issues
Whether the demolition of the petitioner's dwelling house by BBMP officials was illegal and in violation of the procedure under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.
Whether the notices issued under Sections 308 and 321 of the KMC Act were validly served and whether the confirmatory order was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of the house, compensation, and other reliefs due to the alleged arbitrary and mala fide actions of the BBMP officials.
Whether the collusion between respondent No.7 and BBMP officials vitiated the demolition process.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the notice dated 18.11.2013 under Section 321 was dispatched only on 28.11.2013, and the confirmatory order was passed on 29.11.2013, before she could respond, thus violating natural justice.
The petitioner contended that the notice was backdated and sent to an incorrect/incomplete address, so she never received it, and the BBMP officials failed to inform her about the provisional order when she met them on 30.11.2013.
The petitioner submitted that documents proving valid title and plan sanction were handed over to the AE and Jr. Engineer on 25.11.2013, and acknowledgment was given on 30.11.2013, but the officials ignored these documents while passing the confirmatory order.
The petitioner alleged collusion between respondent No.7 and BBMP officers, as evidenced by the caveat dated 3.12.2013 referencing the confirmatory order before she was notified.
The petitioner asserted that the demolition was carried out without due process, and the BBMP Commissioner's order dated 24.01.2018 was illegal and should be quashed.
The respondents did not file written arguments in the excerpt provided.
Judgment Excerpts
notice dated 18.11.2013 under Section 321(1) and 321(2) of the KMC Act was dispatched to the petitioner ... the notice having been dispatched on 28.11.2013, the date on the notice being 18.11.2013 is of no relevance and is motivated and malafide manner of working of the concerned AEE and Jr. Engineer.
the AEE has confirmed the provisional notice issued under Subsection (1) and (2) of Section 321 vide his order dated 29.11.2013 without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to reply to the said notice.
the action on part of the respondents is completely malafide and at the behest of the plaintiff in O.S. No.26414/2013.
respondent No.7 refers to the confirmatory order dated 29.11.2013 which would indicate that the said order dated 29.11.2013 being to the knowledge of respondent No.7 had not been brought to the knowledge of the petitioner, thereby establishing the collusion between respondent No.7 and the officers of the Corporation.
Procedural History
The petitioner purchased the site in 2005 from Dr. Suryakumar Sharma, who had obtained plan sanction in 1995-96. The site had earlier layout approval in 1991. The petitioner obtained electricity connection in 2006. In April 2013, she lodged FIR No.228/2013 about break-in and theft. Respondent No.7 filed O.S. No.26414/2013 seeking injunction; ex parte status quo order was vacated on 21.11.2013. Respondent No.7 also filed O.S. No.7737/2013 on 23.10.2013, and obtained ex parte injunction on 26.10.2013 (withdrawn 5.12.2013). BBMP issued notice under Section 308 on 22.10.2013. Petitioner's husband submitted documents on 25.11.2013; acknowledgment given on 30.11.2013. BBMP issued notice under Section 321 dated 18.11.2013 dispatched on 28.11.2013; confirmatory order passed on 29.11.2013. Petitioner learned of the order through caveat from R7 on 3.12.2013. Petitioner met BBMP officials on 7.12.2013 to complain. The BBMP Commissioner passed order dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure-A). The petitioner filed the instant writ petition in 2019. The matter was reserved for orders on 13.12.2023 and order pronounced on 12.02.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976: 308, 321(1), 321(2)
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, Order 39 Rule 4
