BENGALURU: A classic case of misguided and authoritarian misadventure -- that is how the Karnataka High Court described the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike’s (BBMP) action in demolishing a woman’s house in the city. The court also imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the civic body and laid down general guidelines for demolition of illegal properties.In its judgment on an interlocutory application filed by one Kavitha Podwal of Doddanekkundi, a division bench of Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee and Justice P S Dinesh Kumar noted that BBMP has passed orders in a casual and lackadaisical manner in flagrant disobedience of the court’s earlier order. The BBMP demolished a substantial portion of Kavitha’s house though any such action had been stayed.
The bench added that after hearing the parties concerned in Kavitha’s case, if the BBMP commissioner comes to the conclusion that the demolition of her house was illegal, he shall quantify and pay damages within two weeks from the date of his order. The bench said BBMP had not placed any material to show that its actions were initiated under Section 462 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations (KMC) Act. Also, no time limit was mentioned either in the provisional notice or in the final notice to the house owner, which she claimed were never served upon her. Based on an order dated April 28, 2016, she submitted a representation on May 2, 2016 to the BBMP highlighting the illegalities in passing the demolition orders, But this had not been considered by BBMP, the bench said.
“We are shocked by the response of the BBMP on this aspect, that since the representation was handed over to the Private Secretary to the Commissioner, it may have missed the commissioner’s attention. Nearly 14 months have elapsed since the submission of representation by Kavitha. Though the court had asked the BBMP commissioner to consider her representation, he has despicably cold-shouldered the issue in a casual and lackadaisical manner and in flagrant disobedience of the court’s orders,” the bench said.
House owner went to Supreme Court
April 7, 2016: Kavitha Podwal filed a petition against
demolition of a portion of her house built on a 40X40 ft site
in Doddanekkundi in Ward No. 85. A single-judge HC bench asked
her to approach Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
April 25, 2016: Kavitha had challenged the single-judge bench order in a writ appeal. Meanwhile, the division bench stayed the demolition of her house for eight weeks. Later, she approached the Supreme Court
November 18, 2016: Supreme Court asked HC to dispose of her application on merits
August 1, 2017: High Court bench passes orders on her application
Directions to civic body
In a notice/provisional order, the name and address of the owner/khatedar shall be clearly mentioned.
The identity of the property and the boundaries shall be delineated in an unambiguous manner.
BBMP shall record specific findings with regard to the alleged deviations in the properties
All notices and orders shall be served strictly
Reasonable time shall be specified in the provisional order and time granted to the property owner to file his reply
Before confirming the provisional order, the officer concerned shall record his satisfaction that the provisional order was served to the owner/khatedar
Reasons for confirming the provisional order shall be clearly recorded by the officer concerned
Reasonable time for compliance shall be clearly mentioned in the final order.
No demolition shall be undertaken without recourse to Section 462 of the KMC Act
The directions shall be strictly complied with
Why these guidelines?
“...The provisional show-cause notice declared that the applicant had put up unauthorised construction but does not even mention the schedule of the property or the boundaries. The confirmation order, which followed the provisional notice, also does not disclose the consideration of the facts, therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that both the orders have been passed in a casual and mechanical manner. It is also significant to note that no time limit is prescribed in the orders, ” the division bench said
No one has approached govt for relief: George
Bengaluru Development Minister K J George said though the state government was ready to compensate losses borne by economically backward families during the encroachment clearance drive along storm water drains, nobody approached them. “We are ready to provide houses for the poor who have lost their homes. Nobody has approached us yet,” he said. Encroachments would still be cleared, he added.