IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.3274/2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE BANGALORE-02 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LAND ACQUISITION BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-02 THE APPELLANTS ARE REP. BY HEAD OF LEGAL CELL, B.B.M.P., SRI K.D.DESHPANDE ...APPELLANTS [BY SRI PADMANABHA MAHALE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE] AND:
DR. S.SHOBHA W/O LATE DR. S.JANARDHANA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS NO.295/B, II KRISHNA MAIN GIRINAGAR BANGALORE-560 074 …RESPONDENT [BY DR.S.SHOBHA, RESPONDENT (PARTY-IN-PERSON)] THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.51144/2014 DATED 30/05/2016.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.11.2017, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T 1. This appeal is presented by the Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) challenging the order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.No.51144/2014.
2. We have heard Shri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Dr S.Shobha, respondent / party-in-person; and perused the records.
3. Respondent – writ petitioner, filed the instant petition praying inter alia to direct the BBMP., to sanction an alternative site measuring 50 feet x 80 feet in lieu of an area measuring 600 square feet, allegedly lost by her due to illegal acquisition by the BBMP.
4. Shri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel submitted that, this case has a checkered history. The writ petitioner, had approached the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘State Commission’ for short), alleging deficiency of service by the BBMP. The State Commission, directed the BBMP., to pay ` 15,000/- as compensation. The writ petitioner challenged the said order before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘National Commission’ for short), which directed the BBMP., to pay a compensation of ` 10 lakhs. The BBMP., challenged the same before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.9075/2006.
5. Shri Mahale, further submitted that in a separate proceeding, the writ petitioner had also approached this Court in W.P.No.8426/2010 alleging demolition of a portion of her property.
6. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, in order to give quietus to the issues pertaining to the writ petitioner, the Commissioner, BBMP., passed an order dated 17.01.2012 to pay a sum of ` 10 lakhs towards damages for demolishing writ petitioner’s house unlawfully. In addition, he also ordered for deposit of ` 10 lakhs in the State Commission and to withdraw the SLP No.9075/2006 filed by the BBMP.
7. Shri Mahale, further submitted that, in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the BBMP, has paid to the writ petitioner a sum of ` 10 lakhs towards demolition of her building. The said payment was made by tendering a cheque bearing No.393847 dated 20.01.2012 for a sum of ` 8,99,700/- after deducting TDS as applicable. He further submitted that, in compliance with the order passed by the National Commission, the BBMP., had placed a sum of ` 10 Lakhs in Fixed Deposit on 21.08.2006. The said sum together with the accrued interest, which had grown to ` 15,33,441/- was also paid to the writ petitioner by tendering a cheque bearing No.109664 dated 18.02.2012. Not being satisfied with the said payments made by the BBMP., the petitioner filed the instant writ petition, and the Hon’ble Single Judge has held that ` 10 Lakhs ordered to be paid by the Commissioner, BBMP, as per his order dated 17.01.2012 is in addition to the compensation directed to be paid by the National Commission.
8. Shri Mahale, contended that the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge is not sustainable in law and prayed that the same may be set aside.
9. Dr. Shobha, party-in-person and respondent in this proceeding, supporting the impugned order, prayed for dismissal of this writ appeal. She also prayed that this Court may direct the BBMP, to give her an alternative site and adequate compensation.
10. At the outset, we notice that the prayer in the writ petition is to direct the BBMP, to sanction an alternative site measuring 50 feet x 80 feet. This prayer has been expressly rejected by the Hon’ble Single Judge. So far as the compensation payable to the writ petitioner is concerned, the Hon’ble Single Judge has held that the compensation of ` 10 Lakhs ordered by the Commissioner, BBMP, shall be in addition to the compensation awarded by the National Commission. The order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge precisely reads thus:
“31. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Writ petition is hereby allowed in part.
(2) It is held and ordered that compensation of Rs.10 lakhs ordered to be paid by order dated 17.01.2012 – Annexure-A by first respondent shall be in addition to the compensation ordered by the National Commission in Appeal No.101/1999 and said amount of Rs.10 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only) shall be paid by the Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike to the petitioner within an outer limit of eight weeks from today and it shall not carry any interest. However, in the event of said amount is not paid or deposited within eight weeks from today, it shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of this order till date of deposit or payment, whichever is earlier. Said payment would be subject to observations made hereinabove.
(3) Insofar as claim of the petitioner for grant of an alternate site measuring 50’ x 80’ which has been rejected by order dated 17.01.2012 – Annexure-A stands affirmed.
(4) No order as to costs.”
(emphasis supplied) 11. The order dated 17.01.2012, passed by the Commissioner is unambiguous. He has directed for payment under two distinct heads. Firstly, a sum of ` 10 Lakhs as compensation towards illegal demolition and secondly, a sum of ` 10 Lakhs pursuant to order passed by the National Commission and to withdraw the SLP No.9075/2006.
12. As submitted by Shri. Mahale, it is the specific case of BBMP, that the BBMP, has complied with the order passed by the Commissioner by tendering the aforementioned two cheques. He also submitted that the said cheques have been realized by the writ petitioner. His submission is placed on record.
13. The direction at Sl.No.2, in the impugned order, extracted supra, is precisely in consonance with the order passed by the Commissioner on 17.01.2012. The Hon’ble Single Judge has expressly rejected the prayer for allotment of a site measuring 50 feet x 80 feet. Therefore, in our considered view, this writ appeal is wholly misconceived and un-necessary.
14. Resultantly, this writ appeal is dismissed.
15. The respondent has filed I.A.No.1/2017 for release of ` 10 Lakhs, which the BBMP., has deposited with the Registrar (General) of this Court, pursuant to order dated 14.11.2016 in this proceeding. The deposit is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
16. In view of dismissal of this writ appeal, the deposit made by the BBMP, is directed to be returned to the BBMP with the interest accrued thereon, if any.
17. The respondent has filed I.A.No.2/2017 for a direction to the BBMP, to pay compensation for illegal encroachment of her property as per the order dated 10.06.2009 passed in W.P.No.39750/2004. The said application is misconceived in these proceedings. Accordingly, I.A.No.2/2017 is dismissed. We clarify that, we have not examined the merits of petitioner’s claim in I.A.No.2/2017.
Writ appeal dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE cp*