BENGALURU: A 57-year-old Bengaluru-based woman Kavita Podwal has won an eight-year-long legal battle against the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) by arguing on her own after the civic body illegally demolished her house in Doddanekundi in 2016 without following proper procedures.
The Karnataka High Court directed the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department (PWD) to assess the financial damage caused on account of the demolition and submit a report to the Chief Commissioner of BBMP, who should pay the same to the woman.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said the demolition of the house was illegal while allowing the petition filed by Podwal. The judge noted that the house was demolished without giving a notice under Section 462 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, and without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to avail legal options.
Errant BBMP officers liable for loss, says HC
Apart from paying for the damages after the assessment by the PWD Chief Engineer, the court has directed the BBMP to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation to the petitioner towards mental trauma and Rs 10 lakh compensation towards damage caused to the movable items. This amount has to be recovered from the errant officials after the inquiry by the Chief Commissioner, the court ordered.
The court also directed the BBMP chief to pay the petitioner Rs 10,000 per month from the date of demolition of the house on April 25, 2016, till the premises of the petitioner are restored for human habitation.
The court directed the Principal Secretary of Urban Development Department to institute an inquiry into how the Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer of ward no. 85 (Doddenakundi) and Deputy Director of Town Planning, BBMP demolished the house illegally at the behest of a complaint filed by one Saghir Ahmed of Frazer Town, who had allegedly tried to usurp the property, and take necessary action against them as per law.
The court said the errant BBMP officers are liable for the loss including the personal belongings which were damaged, as she (the petitioner) was not given time to take them.
The court also directed the Chief Commissioner to issue general directions to be followed by officers dealing with such cases.
The BBMP claimed that a notice was issued to the petitioner in 2013. But the court observed that it was not properly issued and served, and said that the basic principles of natural justice were not followed in such a serious matter.