{"id":230762,"date":"2006-03-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006"},"modified":"2018-05-09T22:43:19","modified_gmt":"2018-05-09T17:13:19","slug":"the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner, Bangalore City … vs Dr. Shankarappa on 22 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal<\/div>\n
The Commissioner, Bangalore City … vs Dr. Shankarappa on 22 March, 2006<\/div>\n
  \n \n \n \n \n \n NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION\n  \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\nNATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL\nCOMMISSION\n\n   NEW\n  DELHI \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n  FIRST\nAPPEAL NO. 101 OF 1999 \n\n \n\n(Against\nthe order dated 16.1.1999 in complaint No. 129\/96 of the  \n\n \n\nState\nCommission, Karnataka) \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n The Commissioner, \n\n \n\nBangalore City Corporation, \n\n \n\nBangalore-560 002 \n\n \n\nKarnataka . Appellant \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n Vs. \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n1. Dr.Shankarappa \n\n \n\n No.1635,  80 Feet Road, \n\n \n\n BSK I stage, II Block, \n\n \n\n Bangalore-560050 \n\n \n\n Karnataka \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n2. Dr. Janardhana Murthy \n\n \n\n No.1635,  80 Feet Road, \n\n \n\n BSK I stage, II Block, \n\n \n\n Bangalore-560050 \n\n  Karnataka .. Respondents  \n\n \n\n3. Sri Karibasappa, \n\n \n\n Asstt. Executive Engineer \n\n \n\n Basavanagudi Sub-Division, \n\n \n\n   Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, \n\n \n\n Basavanagudi \n\n \n\n Bangalore-560 004, Karnataka. \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n4. Sri N.V.Vijayakumar, \n\n \n\n   Bangalore Mahanagara Palike \n\n \n\n Division No.48, \n\n \n\n Basavanagudi, \n\n \n\n Banagalore-560 004, Karnataka. \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n  \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n Present Address; \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n The Asstt.\nExecutive Engineer, \n\n \n\n Binnypet, \n\n \n\n   Bangalore Mahangara Palike, \n\n \n\n   Bangalore, Karnataka   ..  \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n5. Sri C. Narayana, \n\n \n\n Asstt. Executive Engineer, \n\n \n\n Padamanabhanagar Sub-Division, \n\n \n\n   Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, \n\n \n\n Bangal \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n6. Shri Chowdappa \n\n \n\n Asstt. Engineer, \n\n \n\n Padamanabhanagar Sub-Division, \n\n \n\n   Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, \n\n \n\n   Bangalore, Karnataka.  respondents 3 to 6 \n\n \n\n  are proforma respondents \n\n  \u00a0\n\n \n\n BEFORE: \n\n \n\n  \u00a0\n\n \n\n HONBLE\nMR. JUSTICE M.B.SHAH,\nPRESIDENT \n\n \n\n MRS.\nRAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER. \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFor the Appellant : Mr. S.N. Bhatt, Advocate \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFor the Respondent Nos. 1\n& 2: Dr. (Mrs.) S. Shobha, Authorsied Representtive \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFor the Respondent Nos. 3 to\n6: N E M O \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n Dated  the\n 22nd March, 2006 \n\n M.B. SHAH. J. PRESIDENT \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n This case\nillustrates how a common\nman can be harassed and\nruined by the functionaries of statutory body such as City Corporation. \n\n \n\n It aptly reflects what is\nobserved in Lucknow Development\nAuthority Vs. M.K.Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243 by the\n  Apex Court: \n\n \n\nAn ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly\nequipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. . A\npublic functionary if acts\nmaliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in\nharassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. \nHarassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring\nand legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society\nis far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and\nprosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more\ndamaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of\ncomplaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in\noffices instead of standing against it.  \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n However,\nthis case reveals that the Complainants stood firm against the arbitrary and\ncorrupt exercise of power by the officers of the City Corporation for oblique\nreasons, and approached various authorities including the High Court for\nredressal of their grievance. \n\n \n\n  \u00a0\n\n \n\n Facts<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
 The
\nonly fact relevant for discussion is that the Complainant No.1 and his son- Complainant
\nNo.2 (since died as contended by his
\nwife because of the mala fide exercise of power by the officers of the
\nCorporation) constructed a house at the
\noutskirts of City Corporation,
\n  Bangalore. Plan was
\nsanctioned by the City Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
However, the complainants received a notice from the City Corporation stating that
\nuse of the house was for the commercial
\npurpose and this was against the rules of
\nthe sanctioned plan. Against
\nthat, the Complainants filed Writ Petition No.6917\/96 before the Karnataka High Court for quashing the
\nnotices dated 20.2.1995, 5.6.1995,
\n5.3.1996 issued by the City Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
Before the High Court, the contention of the Corporation was that they
\nfound fault with the construction made by the Complainant, as:\n<\/p>\n
(i).  the
\nbasement floor is being converted for commercial purpose; and  <\/p>\n
(ii). five cement columns are
\nerected in the basement.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  During
\nthe course of hearing of the matter before the High Court on 20.6.1996, the Complainants gave an
\nundertaking by way of an affidavit to the effect that the basement part would not be used for
\ncommercial purpose. Complainants had also assured the High Court that they
\nwould be proceeding with the
\nconstruction strictly in accordance with the plan and if there was any
\ndeviation from the sanctioned plan or if the Complainants were to make any
\ndeviation outside the plinth area, the Corporation would be free to take such
\naction including demolition of such
\nstructure. On that basis the Court passed the following order:\n<\/p>\n
The provisional order, dated 20th
\nFebruary, 1995, copy of which is marked as Annexure-D and the confirmation
\norder, dated 5.6.95, copy of which is marked as Annexure-F, will not be given
\neffect to unless the petitioner has made any external deviations from the
\nsanctioned plan. In so far as
\nregularisation of minor deviation is concerned, the respondent corporation would
\nconsider the same in accordance with the current  bye-laws which permit
\ncompounding of deviations.  The
\nCorporation would also take into consideration any changes in the Zonal Regulations\/change of land use as regards the site in
\nquestion.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Thereafter, the Complainants
\napproached the Bangalore City Corporation produced the following Notification:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
As per Government Notification No.
\n238 MNJ 94 dated 31.10.95, any building constructed before 31st
\nJanuary, 1995 on a revenue site owned by the owner, if it comes under the
\npurview of Corporation or Bangalore Development Authority or under any Board
\nshall be regularised by taking a penalty of Rs.10\/- (Rupees Ten only) per sq.
\nft. with effect from 30th June, 1995 even if it is unauthorised.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  The
\nComplainants have also produced on
\nrecord a circular dated 14.6.96 issued by the Government of Karnataka,
\npermitting the Corporation to regularize the
\nminor deviations by charging amounts, if any, specified therein.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Despite
\nthe order of High Court and the application filed by the complainants, no action was taken by the Corporation and
\nthey did not permit the Complainants to use the building.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Hence,
\nComplaint No.126\/96 was filed before the State Commission, Karnataka. During pendency of the complaint before the
\nState Commission, the Officers of the City Corporation got demolished certain
\nalleged deviations on 4.4.98 on
\nthe ground that the building plan was sanctioned for residential accommodation and some part of it
\nwas used for commercial purpose.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 As
\nthe building was demolished, the Complainants approached the High Court by
\nfiling contempt petition No. C.C.C
\nNo. 974\/1998 which was placed before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, by observing that the
\nCorporation have not willfully disobeyed any of the Court directions, dropped the contempt proceedings. However, it was observed that dismissal of
\ncontempt proceedings would not prevent the complainants or any one of them for initiating legal
\nproceedings with respect to the action of the respondents, if so advised and permissible
\nunder law.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  In view of the aforesaid
\nobservations, the Complainants approached the higher authorities of the
\nCorporation for compensation. However,
\nthat matter is kept pending on the alleged ground that the Corporation have approached
\nthe Supreme Court against the order passed in Writ Petition no. 6917\/96.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Subsequently,
\nAfter hearing the parties at length and considering the relevant documents,
\nthe State Commission by its order dated
\n16.1.1999 partly allowed the complaint
\nand directed the Commissioner,
\nBangalore City Corporation and its
\nofficers to give No Objection
\nrelating to the providing of civic
\namenities to the building of the Complainants wherever such No Objection is
\nlegally necessary, within one month from the date of receipt of the order,
\nunless there is a legal ground either in the Act or Rule or Regulations to
\nrefuse the same. The State Commission
\nalso directed that the Corporation shall take into consideration the nature of the
\ndirection issued by the High Court of Karnataka by order dated 20.06.96 in Writ
\nPetition NO. 6917\/96.\n<\/p>\n
It also directed the Corporation to pay Rs.15,000\/-
\nas compensation with interest @ 12% from the date of complaint till payment
\nwith costs of Rs.2,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Against the said order, an appeal is
\nfiled by the Bangalore City Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
  \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Findings:\n<\/p>\n
(a) Complainants
\nhave relied on the Government Notification dated 5.1.1995 with regard to the revised comprehensive
\ndevelopment plan to establish that
\nthe land upon which the complainants have constructed the
\nbuilding is within commercial zone. This is notified by Dr. A. Ravindra, Chairman, Bangalore
\nDevelopment Authority. The Notification is reproduced as under:-\n<\/p>\n
The Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) for
\nBangalore approved by the Government of Karnataka in the year 1984, has been
\nrevised by the Bangalore Development Authority, which is the Planning Authority
\nfor the Metropolitan area of Bangalore, as required under Section 25 of the
\nKarnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961. The revised C.D.P. was approved by the
\nGovernment in G.O. No. HUD 139 MNJ 94 dated 5.1.1995. The plan covers an area of 1279 Sq. Kms.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
The CDP lays down the policies and
\nprogrammes for the overall development of Metropolitan area taking into
\nconsideration the long term requirements.\n<\/p>\n
The land requirement for different uses like residential, commercial,
\nindustrial, public and semi public, traffic and transportation, parks and open
\nspaces have been worked out and suitably located. The plan consists of both the land use and
\nthe regulations. The regulations are
\ncomprehensive and simple in nature. In
\neach use zone, certain uses are normally permitted and certain other uses may
\nbe permitted by the Authority under special circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
The proposals of the revised CDP and the
\nzoning regulations framed there under are expected to help in creating a
\nhealthy urban environment to enable the citizens of   Bangalore to live with comfort and to promote the beauty of the
\ncity.\n<\/p>\n
   With the aforesaid Notification, Plan is attached which establishes that the complainants area is within the commercial zone.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
(b) Thereafter,
\nthe Complainant has brought on record the letter dated 15.3.1996 written the by
\nMember of the Town Planning, Bangalore Development Authority to the
\nComplainant, Dr.P.Shankarappa, to the effect that the
\nhouse No.140:26, was under commercial zone under the Revised Comprehensive Town
\nPlanning Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
(c) The
\nComplainant has also produced on record explanation letter written by S.Janardhana Murthy, which is as under:\n<\/p>\n
 As
\nper Government Notification No. 238 MNJ 94 dated 31.10.1995, any building
\nconstructed within 31st January 1995 on a revenue site owned by the
\nowner, if it comes under the purview of Corporation or Bangalore Development
\nAuthority or under any Board shall be regularized by taking a penalty of
\nRs.10\/- (Rupees Ten only) per sq. ft. with effect from 30th June,
\n1995, even if it is unauthorised.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
   In this view of the matter, at the time
\nof hearing of case at Bangalore Circuit Bench of this Commission, we called the
\nAdditional Commissioner, Mr. Gaurav Gupta to look
\ninto the matter and finalise the deviations as per the Regulation. Despite this, he, by ignoring the notification and the
\nRevised Comprehensive Town Planning Scheme, made a statement to the effect that
\ntill today the Complainants were  <\/p>\n
using some portion of the building for commercial purpose and, therefore,
\nnothing could be regularised by the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 In our view, the stand taken by the officers of the
\nCity Corporation is apparently for
\nulterior motive and for harassing the complainants on one ground or the
\nother even by ignoring
\nthe specific directions issued by High Court as well as directions
\nissued by the State Commission. Once the
\narea is in commercial zone the Complainants are entitled, as a matter of right, to use the same for
\ncommercial purpose.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Hence,
\nwhen the matter was again heard at Delhi we asked the learned Counsel, Mr. S.N.Bhat, to make a clear statement on affidavit as to
\nwhether the building was in commercial area or not. Finally, with reluctance the officers of the
\nCorporation admitted that the area in which the building was constructed by the
\nComplainants is in commercial zone. In this connection, learned Counsel Mr.Bhatt
\nreceived a fax message dated 16.3.2006 from the Joint Director of Town Planning
\nto the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
As discussed in the H.O.D. meeting
\nheld today,  the 16th March, 2006, this is to submit that the property bearing No. 140\/26, 5th
\nCross, 22nd  Main,   Srinagar,   Bangalore  50, is earmarked for commercial purpose in the 1995 Revised
\nComprehensive Development Plan of   Bangalore.\n<\/p>\n
 As
\nper the Zoning Regulations of the Revised Comprehensive Development Plan 1995
\n(which is still in force) in the commercial zone residential building are
\npermissible.\n<\/p>\n
  It
\nis found that a modified plan has been sanctioned for residential purpose in
\nthe above said site in favour of Sri P.Shankarappa on
\n03.08.1994 vide LP No. 210\/92-93 by the Superintendent Engineer, South Office,
\nMBP. But now the building is being used for commercial purpose. The building
\nhas violated the sanctioned plan and also the Building Bye-Laws. The deviation
\nsuch as setbacks, coverage, FAR etc. are more than 5% which is not permissible
\nto regularize. The building is already having electricity and drainage
\nconnections. Hence, occupancy certificate has not been issued.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  The
\naforesaid belated admission makes it clear that the officers of the City
\nCorporation were harassing the Complainants by ignoring the fact that the
\nbuilding was in a commercial zone. Not only that, pending the complaint before the State
\nCommission, they have demolished some portion despite the direction issued by
\nthe High Court. Further, on record,
\nthere is a circular dated 14.6.1996 permitting the City Corporation to compound
\nany type of violation or deviation.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Hence,
\nthis is a fit case in which the law laid down by the   Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority (supra), is required to be implemented with full
\nvigour and in its true spirit. Citizens of a Socialist Democratic Republic
\nshould not feel helplessness against undesirable functioning in the government
\nor semi-government offices. Because of the such
\nharassment crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack
\nof public resistance, or, putting in other words, succumb to the pressure of
\nundesirable functioning of the officers instead of standing against this. For
\nthis allegations are made by the Complainants, but the same are not necessary
\nto be discussed in this case.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Whether complaint is maintainable:\n<\/p>\n
 However,
\nLd. Counsel for the Appellant contended that the complaint before the State
\nCommission was not maintainable as there is no relationship between the
\nComplainants and the City Corporation of providing services by charging fees.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 This
\ncontention was also considered by the State Commission in detail and rightly
\nreferred to para 4 of the judgement of the
\n  Apex Court in the case of Lucknow
\nDevelopment Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta (Supra). In that paragraph the Court has, inter alia, held:\n<\/p>\n
The legislative intention is thus clear to
\nprotect a consumer against services
\nrendered even by statutory bodies. The test, therefore, is not if a person
\nagainst whom complaint is made is a statutory body but whether the nature of
\nthe duty and function performed by it is service or even facility.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 In
\nthe present case, the service which is required to be rendered by the
\nCorporation is issuance of
\nNo Objection Certificate in order to enable the Complainants to
\nhave the basic amenities like water, electricity and other allied items. For this purpose reliance is placed on
\nRegulation 5.01 of the Bangalore Water Supply Regulations, 1965. It reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 Application
\nfor house connections  The owner, lessee or occupier,
\nwho desires to have a supply of water shall make an
\napplication for water connection to the Water Supply Engineer, in the form
\nprescribed by the Board through a plumber licensed by the Board. The application shall be accompanied by
\nsanctioned plan of Tax Paid Receipt, an endorsement for having paid the
\nroad cutting charges to appropriate authority, a detailed estimate of cost
\nof connections, and three prints of the several houses in the compound and the
\ndetails of layout of the pipe lines, in relation not only to the Boards
\ndistribution lines running close but also to the public and private drains
\nlatrines, etc.  <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  The State Commission has also referred
\nto the definition of the word deficiency as provided in Section 2(1)(g), which is as under:\n<\/p>\n
 deficiency means any fault,
\nimperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of
\nperformance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the
\ntime being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in
\npursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
From this provision, it is apparent that if there is any
\nfault or shortcoming in nature and manner in performance of service which is
\nrequired to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force,
\nwould be considered as deficiency in service.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  For these services, charges are paid by the
\nComplainants. This payment would
\ncertainly be in the nature of a fee required by the Corporation as costs for
\npermitting the road cutting for having water and electric connections. Complainants have also paid ground charges
\nand betterment charges and these are specific charges or fee for providing
\nservices. In this view of the matter, it
\ncannot be said that the service rendered by the Corporation is without levying
\nany fee or charges.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  For this, the State Commission has
\nrightly referred to the regulations which require no-objection certificate by
\nthe City Corporation, i.e. Regulation No. 5.02 of the KEB (Karnataka
\nElectricity Board) Electricity Supply Regulation, 1988, which we are not
\nreferring at this stage. It is difficult for the Complainants to have
\nelectricity connection to their building without no-objection certificate
\nissued by the City Corporation. Before
\nthe State Commission it was admitted that they did not issue no-objection
\ncertificate for the reasons that there was violation of the building plan. Before this Commission Mr.
\nBhatt, learned counsel for the Appellant, produced a fax message as stated above, wherein
\nit has been mentioned that that Complainants were using the building for commercial purpose and The building is already having
\nelectricity and drainage connections. Hence, Occupancy Certificate has not been
\nissued. Therefore, the aforesaid stand
\nis totally inconsistent and is only to harass the Complainant.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Compensation:\n<\/p>\n
 In our view, for malafide and oblique reasons the officers of the
\nCorporation have harassed the complainants and not permitted them to occupy the
\npremises for 11 years despite the directions given by the High Court. Further, after demolition of alleged
\nunauthorised construction there was no reason for not issuing No Objection
\nCertificate.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  For this reason, before the State Commission
\nthe Complainants prayed for compensation for a sum of Rs.9,75,000\/-. However, details for such a
\nclaim were different. After considering the fact that the
\ndeficiency in service was after 20th June, 1996, i.e. the judgment
\nof the High Court in the Writ Petition No. 6917 of 1996 the Commission awarded
\nonly Rs.15,000\/- as compensation. That compensation is required to be revised
\nbecause till today though no objection certificate is required, it is not issued to the complainants.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 For this purpose, the
\nComplainants have filed an application dated 10.06.99, in the appeal filed by the
\nCorporation, for enhancement of the
\ncompensation awarded by the State Commission.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 However,
\nMr. Bhatt submitted that this application cannot be treated as an appeal for
\nenhancement of compensation and in any case, it is time-barred as the State
\nCommission passed the order on 16.01.99.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 As
\nagainst this Dr. (Mrs.) Shobha (wife of complainant
\nNo.2) ubmitted that she received copy of the order of
\nthe State Commission in March, 1999 and the application was filed on 10.6.99.
\nThis application may be treated as cross-appeal or revision petition and is not
\ntime barred. In any case she has filed application for condonation
\nof delay along with affidavit in support of it.
\nIn our view, the application filed by the Complainant is to be
\nconsidered as revision or cross-revision against the order passed by the State
\nCommission. Even, if there is any delay for a few days, it is required to be condoned in
\nthe interest of justice so that the Complainant who is wronged and is harassed
\nsince 1996 gets appropriate relief.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  At this stage, it would be worthwhile
\nto reproduce the observations of the   Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority
\n(supra), that :\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
Law means long felt necessity of protecting the common man from
\nwrongs for which the remedy under the ordinary civil law for various reasons
\nhas become illusory.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
It attempts to remove the
\nhelplessness of a consumer which he faces against powerful business, described
\nas, a network of rackets or a society in which, producers have secured
\npower to rob the rest and the might of public bodies which are degenerating
\ninto storehouses of inaction.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  In this case order for awarding compensation is required to
\nbe passed by considering that (i). the
\naction of the officers of Corporation is totally malicious; (ii). it is against
\nthe Revised Comprehensive Town Planning
\nScheme for which necessary notification was issued and the letter dated 15.3.96
\nwas written by the Member, Town
\nPlanning, Bangalore Development Authority
\nto the effect that the premises of the Complainants was in commercial zone;\n<\/p>\n
(iii). it is virtual and intentional flouting of the directions issued by the High Court in Writ Petition
\nonly with a view to harass the
\ncomplainants; (iv) after demolition of alleged unauthorised portion of the
\nbuilding, there was no reason for not
\nissuing the no-objection certificate (iv) till today the Complainants are not
\npermitted to occupy the premises except few rented shops; (v) it is against the
\ncircular dated 14.6.1996 issued by the Government of Karnataka, permitting the
\nCorporation to regularise the minor deviations by charging amounts, as
\nspecified therein; and (vi) it is also against the Notification dated
\n31.10.1995, as reproduced above.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Hence, for assessing the loss, we have to consider that the complainants were not
\npermitted to utilise his premises fully from 1995 to 2006, for no fault on
\ntheir part, and that they were harassed and were compelled to resort to various
\nlitigations. Hence, this a fit case for
\npassing appropriate orders to compensate the complainants for the loss suffered
\nby them. Before the State Commission the
\nComplainants have claimed Rs.7,30,000\/- per year. In
\nour view, that is apparently on the higher side. However, if we take into
\nconsideration the over all facts and the nature of dispute and the malicious
\nand unethical attitude of the officers of the Corporation and the pendency of
\nthe matter for ten years, it would be just and proper to direct the City
\nCorporation to pay Rs.10 lakhs towards compensation to the Complainants. This
\nquantification of the amount is much more less than the amount of rent which
\nthe Complainants would have received if the premises were given on rent or the
\namount of loss
\nof interest on the cost of construction.\n<\/p>\n
 Hence,
\nin the result, it
\nis ordered that:\n<\/p>\n
1.   For
\nthe reasons stated above, and also taking into consideration the amount of
\nharassment and mental
\nagony undergone by the complainants for nearly ten years, the Bangalore City Corporation to pay Rs. 10 lakhs
\ntowards compensation to the complainants.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
2. Further,
\nit is directed that within 15 days of receipt of this order, the Appellants
\nshall issue No-Objection Certificate relating to providing all civic amenities
\nto the buildings of the Complainant which would include of getting water
\nconnection, drainage connection, etc.  <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 However,
\nit is made clear that in any case, if there is any unauthorised construction in
\nthe building in question which is located in a commercial zone, it would be
\nopen to the City Corporation to issue a fresh notice stating to what extent
\nthere is violation and the reasons as to why it could not be regularised. After
\nissuing such notice
\nand giving an opportunity
\nof hearing to the complainants,
\nappropriate speaking order in conformity with the rules for building in
\na commercial zone would be passed by the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
 The
\nabove direction is in conformity with the order passed by the High Court in
\nW.P. No. 6917 of 1997 decided on 20.6.1996.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
The Appellant, Bangalore City
\nCorporation shall also pay Rs.25,000\/- towards litigation
\nexpenses to the Complainant.\n<\/p>\n
 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
….J <\/p>\n
  (M.B. SHAH) <\/p>\n
  PRESIDENT <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
   …..\n<\/p>\n
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO) <\/p>\n
  MEMBER <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal The Commissioner, Bangalore City … vs Dr. Shankarappa on 22 March, 2006 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI \u00a0 \u00a0 FIRST APPEAL NO. 101 OF 1999 (Against the order dated 16.1.1999 in complaint No. 129\/96 of the State Commission, Karnataka) \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 The Commissioner, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-230762","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner, Bangalore City ... vs Dr. Shankarappa on 22 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner, Bangalore City ... vs Dr. Shankarappa on 22 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-09T17:13:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner, Bangalore City … vs Dr. Shankarappa on 22 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T17:13:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3479,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner, Bangalore City ... vs Dr. Shankarappa on 22 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T17:13:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner, Bangalore City … vs Dr. Shankarappa on 22 March, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Commissioner, Bangalore City ... vs Dr. Shankarappa on 22 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner, Bangalore City ... vs Dr. Shankarappa on 22 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-09T17:13:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner, Bangalore City … vs Dr. Shankarappa on 22 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T17:13:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006"},"wordCount":3479,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006","name":"The Commissioner, Bangalore City ... vs Dr. Shankarappa on 22 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T17:13:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-bangalore-city-vs-dr-shankarappa-on-22-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner, Bangalore City … vs Dr. Shankarappa on 22 March, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230762","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=230762"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230762\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230762"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230762"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230762"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}