The Karnataka High Court has observed that the officers of a Corporation cannot decide a property title dispute, and it can only be decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

The Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj awarded compensation to the woman whose house was illegally demolished by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, and observed that, "The officers of the Corporation are required to implement the statute relevant thereto, at present the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020. None of the officers of the Corporation can decide a title dispute, it can only be decided by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. If a complaint had been filed by Respondent No.7 in that regards the officers of the corporation ought to have requested him to approach the civil court, the officers of the Respondents can only ascertain if the construction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan and/or building bye laws and cannot decide questions of title."

In that context, it was further said that, "The officers are required to discharge their official functions in terms of the applicable law and while doing so, the powers vested with them cannot be exercised at the behest of or in favour of any one of the private parties, they are required to act in accordance with law."

The petitioner appeared in person, while Counsel Sarita Kulkarni and Counsel HE Ramesh appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the BBMP had issued a sequence of notices to the petitioner under Sections 308 and 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, asserting illegal construction of her house. In 2016, her house was demolished to the ground without proper legal sanction.

The petitioner contended that these actions were driven by malafide intent, influenced by external pressures, especially respondent no. 7.

The Court observed that, "The haste with which the officials of the Corporation have acted on the basis of the complaint given by respondent No.7 would only indicate the collusion between the said officials and respondent No.7."

It was further observed that without the service of notice detailing the alleged violations and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to reply as per Section 321(1) of the Act, the confirmatory order should not have been passed. In that context, it was said that, "Before the petitioner became aware of the notice under Subsection (1) of Section 321 and Subsection (2) of Section 321 a confirmatory order under Subsection (3) of Section 321 was passed without serving notice under Section 462 demolition work was carried out. All these actions can only be said to be high-handed and illegal on part of the officers of the Corporation."

Consequently, the BBMP was directed to pay Rs. 5 Lakhs as compensation towards mental trauma undergone by the petitioner, and Rs. 10 Lakhs as compensation towards damage caused to the movable items of the petitioner.

Cause Title: Kavita Podwal vs The BBMP & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Karnataka High CourtJustice Suraj GovindarajIllegal Demolition

Verdictum News Desk