Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court

"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