Karnataka High Court
Dr. S Shobha vs The Chief Commissioner on 13 August, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:32425
WP No. 18684 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION No. 18684 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. S SHOBHA
AGED 65 YEARS
W/O LATE Dr. S JANARDHENA MURTHY
No.5, 17TH MAIN
Digitally signed SRINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 026.
by SUMA B N ...PETITIONER
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI DR. S SHOBHA - PARTY IN PERSON)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE BANGALORE - 560 002.
(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DTD. 10.10.2023)
2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
HANUMANTHANAGAR POLICE STATION
BANGALORE - 560 019.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B S SATYANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT CORPORATION TO PAY ADMITTED Rs.50,00,000/-
DAMAGES FOR DEMOLITION WITH INTEREST 15 PERCENT
FORM 04.04.1998 TILL DATE AFTER DEDUCTING
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:32425
WP No. 18684 of 2022
RS.10,00,000/- AT THE END AND ALTERNATIVELY TO DIRECT
THE EXECUTING COURT TO EXECUTE THE DAMAGES,
COMPENSATION OTHER STATUTORY BENEFITS IN EXECUTION
CASE NO.630/2020 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner / party-in-person is before this Court seeking the following reliefs;
(i) To direct the respondent - Corporation to pay admitted Rs.50.00 lakhs damages for demolition with interest at 15% from 04.04.1998 till date after deducting Rs.10.00 lakhs at the end.
(ii) Alternatively to direct the Executing Court to execute the damages, compensation, other statutory benefits in the Execution Case No.630/2020 in the interest of justice as per the C.C.No.1458/2018 at Annexure-D.
(iii) To direct the Inspector - respondent No.3 to file F.I.R and charge sheet in the complaint filed on 04.04.1998 before the said Police Station for illegal demolition as in C.C.No.974/1998 produced at Annexure-B.
(iv) Any other order in the circumstances of the case this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.
2. Case of the petitioner / party-in-person is that; -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022
(a) She is the absolute owner of the premises No.140/26, 5th Cross, 22nd Main, Srinagara, Bengaluru (present 10th Main), she having acquired the same in terms of a registered deed of sale (hereinafter referred to as subject property). That the Khata in respect of the subject property has been mutated in her name in the records of the respondent - Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short hereinafter referred to as "BBMP"). That a portion of the said property was acquired illegally by respondent-BBMP without the authority of law and without following the process contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. That even while acquiring the said portion of property, the respondent - BBMP had demolished the building consisting of three floors wherein the petitioner was running a Nursing Home. The said demolition had taken place on 04.04.1998.
(b) That proceedings were initiated by her for the illegal demolition and an order was passed, consequent -4- NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 upon which a contempt petition was initiated by her in C.C.C.No.974/1998, which was disposed of on 22.09.1998.
(c) That the respondent-BBMP had admitted demolition to be illegal and had further resolved to pay her Rs.50.00 lakhs towards illegal demolition. However, it had paid only Rs.10.00 lakhs by deducting Rs.1,03,000/- without even issuing the T.D.S certificate as per Annexure- C.
(d) It is her further case that this Court in the order dated 19.04.2018 passed in another contempt proceedings in C.C.C.No.1458/2016 had directed her to file an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking compensation. Accordingly, she had filed application which was referred to and registered as L.A.C.No.19/2018, in which final order was passed by the L.A.C Court vide its judgment and award dated 03.01.2020 granting her certain compensation. Not being satisfied with the said award, she had preferred a miscellaneous first appeal in M.F.A.No.2179/2019, which was disposed of by -5- NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 this Court by order dated 23.12.2021 recalculating the interest and value of the property. She submits that she had preferred a miscellaneous petition seeking review of the said order passed in M.F.A.No.17937/2019 and said miscellaneous petition is still pending consideration.
(e) It is her further case that she had also initiated parallel proceedings before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and an order came to be passed in her favour, directing the respondent - BBMP to pay the compensation, against which an appeal was preferred by the respondent - BBMP in First Appeal No.101/1999 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short 'National Commission'). The said appeal was disposed of by the National Commission vide its order dated 16.01.1999 directing the respondent - BBMP to pay her Rs.10.00 lakhs towards the compensation for the harassment and mental agony undergone by her. Thus, based on these materials, she is before this Court contending that the respondents be -6- NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 directed to pay her further compensation of Rs.50.00 lakhs, with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 04.04.1998.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent - BBMP taking through the statement of objections submits that;
(a) the present claim is made on imaginary and illusory grounds. He further submits that all the orders/reliefs made in favour of the petitioner by the respondent-BBMP, under the Consumer Protection Act, under the Land Acquisition Act and as directed by the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court have been complied with. He submits that as on this date an aggregate sum of Rs.2,19,73,831/- has been paid to the petitioner towards all these claims/orders.
(b) He refers to the order originally passed by the respondent - BBMP dated 17.01.2012, in which the respondent-BBMP had admitted having taken 61 sq.ft of the property belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of -7- NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 formation of footpath and road and had also ordered to pay Rs.10.00 lakhs as compensation for the illegal demolition of her Nursing Home. He further points out that pursuant to the order thus passed, the petitioner had been paid a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs. He also points out the order which was passed by the National Commission directing the respondent-BBMP to pay Rs.10.00 lakhs and submits that even the said amount has been paid with interest on 18.02.2012.
(c) As regards the order passed in the L.A.C No.19/2018, which was modified and enhanced by this Court in M.F.A.No.2179/2019, he submits that the petitioner had filed an execution petition in Execution Petition No.630/2020 on the file of the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru. He also points out that the Executing Court in the order produced by the petitioner herself as per Annexure-A, has taken into consideration all the amounts which the petitioner was entitled to and had also calculated the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 amount payable to the petitioner in a sum of Rs.88,51,048/- as seen in Annexure-J.
(d) It is his further submission that since all the claims which were made by the petitioner have been satisfied, which were traceable to the orders passed by the respondent - BBMP, the orders passed by the State Commission, confirmed by the National Commission, Order Passed in L.A.C No.19/2018 confirmed and enhanced by this Court in M.F.A.No.2179/2019, thus, he submits that there is no other order required to be complied by the respondent-BBMP.
(e) He also points out to an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in C.C.C.No.370/2006 which was filed by the petitioner complaining non compliance of the order passed by the National Commission in First Appeal No.101/1999, wherein this Court taking into consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the matter and taking serious exception to the conduct of the petition in filing repeated petition had dropped the -9- NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 proceedings just short of imposing cost on the petitioner. Thus, he submits that there is nothing which is required to be complied with. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Heard. Perused the records.
5. Before adverting to the submission made by the petitioner/party-in-person and learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation it is necessary to encapsulate all the proceedings that have been initiated by the petitioner till date in respect to the subject matter of the property and the orders that have been passed thus for. This is for the reason that though several reliefs have been sought for by the petitioner/party-in-person there are no pleadings or averments supporting said plea except referring to various orders that have been passed by various Courts. This exercise is necessitated in view of the matter being submitted by petitioner being party-in-person.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022
(a) Originally petitioner herein along with one P.Shankarappa and Dr. Janaradhana Murthy had filed writ petition in W.P.No.6917/1996 seeking to set aside orders dated 20.02.1995, 05.06.1995, 05.03.1996 that were passed by the Commissioner- Corporation City of Bangalore and Administrator Bangalore Standing Committee with regard to deviations made by the petitioners in the said petition utilizing basement floor of the building for commercial purpose on the subject property. It appears an affidavit of undertaking was filed by the 2nd petitioner in the said writ petition undertaking not to allow any portion of the building to be used for the commercial purposes and in view of the same, this Court on 20.06.1996 disposed of the said writ petition by passing the following order ;
"The provisional order, dated 20.02.1995, copy of which is marked as Annexure-D and confirmation order dated 05.06.1995, copy of which is marked as Annexure-F will not be given effect to unless the petitioner has made any external deviation from the sanctioned plan. Insofar as, the regulation of minor deviation is concerned, the respondent -Corporation would consider the same in accordance with current bye-laws which permits compounding of deviations. Corporation would
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 also take into consideration any change in the zonal regulations/ change of land used as regards the site in question".
(b) Alleging disobedience of the aforesaid order CCC No.974/1998 came to be filed which was dropped on 22.09.1998 upon the affidavit filed by the Corporation City of Bangalore stating that the request of the petitioner for regularization of deviation was exceeding the prescribed limit and the construction made by the petitioner was by encroaching portion of the public road. While closing the matter liberty was reserved to the petitioner /complainant thereunder to initiate legal proceedings with respect to the action of the respondents be permissible under law and so advised.
(c) In the meanwhile, after disposal of W.P. 6917/1996, a complaint was filed by the petitioner in Complaint No.129/1996 before the Karnataka State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission seeking direction to the Bangalore City
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 Corporation to issue no objection certificate to grant, electricity and other civic amenities and also for direction to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.9,75,000/- alleging deficiency service. The said complaint was partly allowed by the State Commission by order dated 16.01.1999 directing the Commissioner of Bangalore City Corporation to issue no objection certificate as sought for within one month from the date of the receipt of the order unless there was any legal ground either under the Act, Rules, Regulations to refuse the same bearing in mind the direction given by this Court in its order dated 20.06.1996 passed in W.P.No.6917/1996 and the Corporation was further directed to pay damages of Rs.15,000/- with interest at 12% and cost of Rs.2,000/-.
(d) Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.1999 passed by the State Commission, Commissioner, Bangalore City Corporation filed appeal in First Appeal
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 No. 101/1999 before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The said appeal was dismissed by the National Commission confirming the order passed by the State Commission and directing the Bangalore City Corporation to pay Rs.10.00 Lakhs towards compensation to complainants/petitioners.
(e) Aggrieved by the order of the National Commission, the Bangalore City Corporation preferred Special Leave Petition in SLP (Civil) No.9075/2006. The said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn and the Bangalore City Corporation was directed to release the amount of compensation to the complainants within four weeks.
(f) An execution petition in E.P.No.20/2006 was filed before the State Commission on 10.04.2006 seeking payment of amount as ordered by the National Commission which was deposited in the interest bearing account. After withdrawal of the civil appeal
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 filed by the Corporation before the Apex court the amount so deposited with interest aggregating sum of Rs.15,33,441/- was paid to the petitioner by the State Commission on 18.02.2004.
(g) In the meanwhile, petitioner filed yet another writ petition in W.P.No.39750/2004 for a direction to the Special Commissioner, BBMP to produce the proceedings of First Appeal No.101/1999 and Mis. No.129/1999 and also to pay damages towards demolition of the building. Upon the submission made by the petitioner in the said writ petition that she would be satisfied if a direction was issued to the Corporation to allot her site measuring 50' X 80' valued at Rs.7.20 lakhs as against Rs. 30.00 lakhs and the value of the site belonging to the petitioner. Recording the said submission by order dated 10.06.2009 the Corporation was directed to consider the request of the petitioner for alternate site and to pass order strictly in accordance with law taking into
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 consideration the order dated 16.12.2004 of the State Government.
(h) Alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order petitioner initiated contempt proceedings against the Corporation in CCC No. 861/2009 wherein she also sought for award of damages to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs. In the said proceedings the respondent - Corporation produced an order dated 09.09.2009 which was passed pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued in W.P.No.39750/2004. It is also pointed out that as against the said order dated 09.09.2009, petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Administration, BBMP, Bangalore which was disposed of on 15.12.2009.
(j) Thereafter a writ petition in W.P.No.8426/2010 was filed by the petitioner seeking allotment of a corner commercial site measuring 50' X 80' in any developed area in Bangalore Urban on the premise that the respondent-Corporation had illegally
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 demolished the property of the petitioner and had encroached upon an extent of 4 feet of property reducing the original size of the property. In the said writ petition considering the statement of objections, by order dated 30.05.2011 ordered for measurement of site dimension which was allegedly encroached upon by the BBMP. A report pursuant to the said direction was submitted along with the sketch. Taking note of the factual aspect of the matter and observing that property of the petitioner was utilized by the BBMP without notice or acquisition, the order of the Commissioner rejecting the claim of the petitioner dated 09.09.2009 and the subsequent order dated 23.12.2009 passed by the Administrator, BBMP was quashed and the matter was disposed of directing the respondent-Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner afresh within two months.
(k) Thereafter, Commissioner, BBMP by order dated 17.09.2012 passed a fresh order with direction to
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 pay Rs.10.00 lakhs as compensation for demolishing the building unlawfully and to pay Rs.10.00 lakhs deposited before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.
(l) The petitioner initiated yet another contempt proceedings in CCC No.545/2012 alleging disobedience of the order passed in W.P.No.8426/2010 which was dropped/dismissed on 23.11.2012.
(m) Thereafter, petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.51144/2014 seeking direction to the Corporation to sanction and allot site measuring 50' X 80'. Taking note of the aforesaid events said writ petition was allowed in part by order dated 30.05.2016 by observing that compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs that is ordered to be paid by the Commissioner, BBMP in its order dated 17.01.2012 shall be in addition to the order to pay compensation of Rs.10.00 made by the National Commission in
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 First Appeal No.101/1999 with further direction to pay the interest at 8% p.a. if there was delay in making the payment. The claim for the petitioner for allotment of alternate site which was rejected by the Commissioner was affirmed.
(n) Alleging non -compliance of the said order in W.P.No.51144/2014, a contempt proceedings initiated in CCC No.1458/2016. The said contempt proceedings were dropped by order dated 19.04.2018 reserving liberty to the petitioner/complainant to file petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Land Acquisition Officer within thirty days from the date of the order. The Land Acquisition Officer-BBMP was directed to refer the matter for Civil Court for adjudication of correct extent of land actually losed by the complainant and to determine the correct market value under which the complainant was held entitled along with statutory benefit payable.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022
(o) In the meanwhile a writ appeal was filed in W.A.No.3274/2016 by the BBMP against the order dated 30.05.2016 passed in W.P.No.51144/2014 which was dismissed.
(p) Petitioner initiated the proceedings in LAC No.19/2018 pursuant to the order dated 19.04.2018 passed in CCC No.1458/2015 seeking compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said case was partly allowed by order dated 03.01.2020, petitioner/claimant was entitled for market value at the rate of Rs.4,617 per sq.ft. in respect of acquired property measuring 257 sq.ft. instead of Rs.1,730 per sq. ft. awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer-BBMP. It was further held that the claimant was entitled for additional market value under Section 23(1-A) of the LA Act at the rate of 12% p.a. and the enhanced market value from the date of publication of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act till the date of
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 dispossession or the date of award which were is earlier. The claimant is also entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced market valued as per Section 23(2) of the Act and the interest at 9% thereon for a period of one year from the date of taking over possession of land and at the rate of 15% p.a. for the subsequent years till depositing the entire amount.
(q) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order in LAC No.19/2018, petitioner herein filed appeal in MFA No.2179/2020 while respondent-BBMP filed appeal in MFA No.3442/2020. The appeal filed by the petitioner in MFA No.2179/2020 vide order dated 23.12.2021 was disposed of holding that the petitioner was entitled for additional interest of 12% on the enhanced market value of Rs.10,48,329.90 from the date of dispossession, while the MFA No.3442/2020 filed by the respondent -BBMP was dismissed.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022
(r) Execution Petition in E.P.No.630/2020 is filed seeking recovery of award amount as per the order dated 03.01.2020 passed in LAC No.19/2018 and modified in MFA No.2179/2020 dated 23.12.2021.
(s) Contempt in CCC No.285/2021 was filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the order dated 03.01.2020 passed in LAC No.19/2018 which was disposed of on 8.3.2021 holding that there was no case for initiating contempt proceeding were made out.
(t) Petitioner had earlier filed a contempt petition in CCC No.370/2006 alleging non-compliance of the orders passed by the State Commission on 16.01.1999 in Complaint No.129/1996 and the order dated 29.01.2006 passed in First Appeal No.101/1999 by the National Commission. On 03.11.2006 the said contempt proceedings were dropped in view of the stay granted by the Apex Court staying the order passed by the National Commission reserving liberty
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 to the petitioner to file appropriate application at later point in time. Pursuant thereon petitioner filed I.A.No.1/2013 alleging amount payable by the Corporation to her to be Rs.1,24,68,400/-. By order dated 05.03.2019 taking note of the fact that the amount has directed by the National Commission vide its order dated 21.3.2006 had been paid by the Corporation, the proceedings were dropped. Thereafter, the petitioner filed yet another application in I.A.No.1/2020 seeking to recall the said order dated 05.03.2019. The Division Bench of this Court by a detailed order taking exception to the matter being dragged on by the petitioner from the year 2006 before various Benches of this Court dismissed the said application also observed that though the court was inclined to impose heavy cost on the petitioner for wasting public time, taking into consideration that the petitioner was appearing in party-in-person it restrained from imposing the cost
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 and consequently dropped the contempt proceedings by dismissing the said application in I.A.No.1/2020.
6. It is in the background of the aforesaid numerous proceedings initiated by the petitioner right from the year 2006 till date, the present writ petition needs to be adjudicated.
7. Though proceedings as noted above have been initiated by the petitioner seeking various reliefs ultimately the orders referred to above would indicate that as against the proceedings initiated before the Karnataka Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum by the petitioner and others in Compliant No.129/1996 which culminated in the order dated 16.01.1999 passed by the National Commission in First Appeal No.101/1999 the petitioner was directed to be paid Rs.10.00 lakhs as compensation. The said order though challenged by the respondent-Corporation in SLP (Civil) No.9075/2006 same was withdrawn as dismissed. Thus, the amount payable to the petitioner under the said
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 proceedings was only Rs.10.00 lakhs with interest as directed thereunder.
8. The subsequent proceedings initiated by the petitioner by filing writ petition in W.P.No.39750/2004 and W.P.No.8426/2010, and the intervening order that was passed by the Commissioner, BBMP on 17.01.2012 and the subsequent order dated 30.05.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.No.51144/2014 would indicate that the petitioner was held entitled for compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs ordered to be paid by the Commissioner, BBMP in its order dated 17.01.2012 was in addition to Rs.10.00 lakhs payable to the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the National Commission in First Appeal No.101/1999. That as noted in the contempt proceedings in CCC No.370/2006, the Division Bench of this Court taking note of the all the events with regard to payment of compensation amount had held that the petitioner was entitled to Rs.21,06,559/- after adjusting Rs.5,33,141/- which was already paid by the respondent-BBMP towards interest and that even the
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 said amount of Rs.21,06,559/- was paid before the Court by the respondent-Corporation along with a memo of calculation dated 05.03.1999 and accordingly, had closed the contempt proceedings.
9. The other claim which the petitioner was entitled to is emanating from the LAC proceedings in LAC No.19/2018 awarding compensation to the petitioner which culminated in the order dated 23.12.2021 passed in MFA No.2179/2021 filed by the petitioner as noted above in respect of which the petitioner has now filed execution petition in E.P.No.630/2020 seeking recovery of the amount in a sum of Rs.5,38,61,032.32.
10. The Executing Court has calculated all the amounts which the petitioner had received and also has taken into consideration the memo of calculation submitted by the respondent - BBMP and by an order dated 20.06.2022 accepted the calculation submitted by the respondent - BBMP. Further order sheet/Daily orders produced at Annexures - R1, R2, R3 and R4 by the
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 respondent - BBMP in the said Execution Petition along with the statement of objections indicate that the said amount has been deposited and the Execution Petition has been closed by order dated 09.09.2022. There has been no challenge by the petitioner against this order. However, the petitioner, as already noted above, is seeking directions to the Executing Court to grant damages, compensation and the other statutory benefits on the basis of the order passed by this Court in C.C.C.No.1458/2016.
11. As already noted above, being dissatisfied with the order passed by this Court in M.F.A.No.2179/2019, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition and the same is pending consideration. Until and unless the said revision petition is disposed of granting any order in the said revision proceedings, as sought for by the petitioner, petitioner may not be justified in seeking relief before the executing court more than what is granted in the said M.F.A.No.2179/2019. No fault or irregularity can be found with the Executing Court in calculating the amount payable
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 to the petitioner as directed by this Court in the order passed in said M.F.A.No.2179/2019. The Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, as such, the direction sought for in prayer No.(ii) of the present petition cannot be granted.
12. As regards prayer No.(i) is concerned, though it is claimed by the petitioner that the respondent has admitted to the damages of Rs.50.00 lakhs, no material in that regard is placed on record. At this juncture, the petitioner/party-in-person refers to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 06.02.2012 passed in I.A.No.5 in Civil Appeal No.3598/2008, to submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the respondent - BBMP to release the amount of compensation and interest to the petitioner within a period of four weeks.
13. On a further query by this Court as to whether the said order indicates requirement of payment of Rs.50.00 lakhs by the respondent-Corporation, but, she submits that there is no specific order in this regard.
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022
14. At the cost of repetition it is necessary to note that the order dated 06.02.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeal No.3598/2008 is in the appeal which was preferred by the respondent - BBMP against the order passed by the National Commission in First Appeal No.101/1999, by which the National Commission had directed the respondent - BBMP to pay a compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs. The order of the Hon'ble Apex Court directing the respondent-BBMP to pay the compensation with interest has to be read only as such and not beyond. The same cannot be extended to justify the claim of the petitioner for Rs.50.00 lakhs.
15. Necessary also to note that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 30.05.2016 passed in W.P.No.51144/2014 in its detailed order taking into consideration all the proceedings from the inception till the date of the said order had come to the conclusion that petitioner was entitled only for a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs as a compensation that was ordered to be paid by the
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 Commissioner by its order dated 17.01.2012 which was in addition to Rs.10.00 lakhs which was awarded by the National Commission in Appeal No.101/1999 with applicable interest at 8% p.a.. This aspect of the matter has been further taken into consideration by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 03.09.2022 passed in C.C.C.No.370/2006 as already noted hereinabove. Further the Division Bench of this Court having taken into consideration the repeated approach being made by the petitioner seeking compensation on the one or the other baseless grounds, while dropping the contempt proceedings had even contemplated imposing of costs.
16. The present petition is filed on 12.9.2022 which is subsequent to the aforesaid order dated 03.09.2022 passed in CCC No.370/2006. The present petition apart from lacking merits is nothing short of abuse of process of Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
17. Even after disposal of the present petition as above, the party-in-person relentlessly going on making
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32425 WP No. 18684 of 2022 submissions questioning this Court for she not having been granted relief as sought for. She even claims that she would file an affidavit about today's proceedings expressing her dissatisfaction. This conduct of the party-in-person is unacceptable. In fact, even in earlier proceedings in CCC No.370/2006 the Division Bench by order dated 23.06.2022 has taken note of the conduct of the petitioner which is reflected in the order dated 03.09.2022.
18. In the circumstances, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of the Party-in-Person Committee which assesses the ability of party-in-persons to assist the Court in conducting their cases personally and to take necessary action in the matter pertaining to petitioner herein.
Registry to take note of this matter.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE GH, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28