Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

"A Classic Case of Misguided Authoritarian Misadventure" - Karnataka High Court on Illegal Demolition

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, declared the demolition of a dwelling house belonging to petitioner Kavita Podwal as illegal. The court ordered substantial compensation for the losses and trauma suffered by Podwal, stating it was a “classic case of misguided authoritarian misadventure” by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).

The court delved into the legality of the demolition conducted by the BBMP. Podwal’s petition contended that the demolition of her house and the subsequent actions by BBMP officials violated her fundamental rights, including her right to live with safety, privacy, and dignity.

The BBMP issued a series of notices to Podwal under Sections 308 and 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, alleging illegal construction. These notices, followed by the demolition order, were found to be improperly served and based on incorrect assumptions about the property’s legal status. The petitioner argued that the actions were motivated by malafide intent, influenced by external pressures, notably from respondent No.7, Saghir Ahmed.

Justice Govindaraj meticulously analyzed the sequence of events and the legal procedures followed by the BBMP. The court found that the BBMP had acted without due process, failing to serve notices properly and not providing Podwal an opportunity to respond. The court held that the demolition was conducted in haste, influenced by external parties, and without adherence to legal protocols.

As a result, the court ordered the BBMP to:

Compensate Podwal with ₹5 lakhs for mental trauma.

Pay ₹10 lakhs for damage to movable property, recoverable from the errant officials.

Pay ₹10,000 per month from the date of demolition until the premises are restored.

Conduct an assessment of the financial damage caused by the demolition.

Additionally, the court directed the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, to investigate the roles of the BBMP officials involved in this case.

Date of Decision: 12th February 2024

KAVITA PODWAL VS THE BBMP

 

Latest Legal News