KATHA-A NEWS REPORT-BBMP KATHA FOR REVENUE SITES

IT HAS BEEN REPORTED IN A SECTION OF THE PRESS THAT BBMP CANNOT ISSUE KATHA FOR REVENUE SITES WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION WITHOUT GOVERNMENT ORDERS OR THE AMENDMENT TO KTCP ACT AND KLR ACT OR THE ENFORCEMENT OF AKRAMA - SAKRAMA SCHEME, SAID MR.SIDDAIAH, THE COMMISSIONER, BBMP.

PLATINUM CITY - PEENYA - ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORISED STRUCTURES DEMOLISHED BY BDA

CLEAR CASE OF CHEATING AND FRAUD!!!
A CLIENT STATED THAT THE BANKS HAVE SANCTIONED HOME LOAN AND IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE TITLES ARE CLEAR. GENTLEMEN, IS IT CLEAR FOR YOU NOW!!!!!
 
A NEWS REPORT:
The Bangalore Development Authority recovered eight Civic Amenity (CA) sites (3.5 acres), allegedly encroached upon by a private builder to provide parking space for its apartment owners, during a demolition drive early Wednesday morning.

The Platinum City apartment complex in Yeshwantpur has amassed nearly Rs six crore by illegally allotting the parking space to 300 of its residents.

The complex, promoted by India Builders’ Corporation (IBC), had sold the encroached land as parking slots to its unsuspecting residents. It had collected between Rs 1.5 lakh and Rs 2 lakh from each of its residents.

According to the Karnataka Apartment Owners’ Act, 1972, selling an encroached property as parking space to resident’s amounts to a violation. The Act also states that no ‘undivided common area’ can be sold by builders. The common area is defined to include basements, cellars, yards, gardens, parking areas and storage spaces.

The BDA noted that it had served several notices on the builders on survey numbers 47 and 48 of Peenya village near HMT Road in Yeshwantpur, after noticing that the CA sites were encroached upon.

“As the builders of Platinum City did not surrender the sites despite several reminders, we decided to demolish the structures,” said BDA Superintendent of Police N N Indira.  In addition to demolishing the parking structures, the BDA also razed to ground the workers’ shed and a road leading to block 8 that were constructed on the CA sites.

“They even approached the court where their petition was dismissed. Finally, they agreed to repatriate the CA sites. However, despite persistent reminders, Platinum City did not surrender the sites to us, forcing the demolition,” said Indira.

The CA sites were, in fact, formed by the developer as per the condition of the BDA, so that amenities could be provided to residents of the complex.

However, instead of handing over the sites to the BDA, IBC utilised them to construct car parking, swimming pool and a club house on the said CA sites 1,2,3,4 and office on sites 5 and 6. 
 

AKRAMA-SAKRAMA (RURAL) AND URBAN AMENDMENT APPROVED

THE LEGISLATURE HAS GIVEN ITS APPROVAL FOR THE REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTIONS IN RURAL AREAS OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS MEASURING 20 FEET X 30 FEET AND IN URBAN AREAS( INCLUDING 18 KM RADIAL AREA) OF BANGALORE, CONSTRUCTED ON REVENUE GOVERNMENT LANDS BY RURAL AND URBAN POOR, WHICH(FAMILY) DOES NOT HAVE ANY HOUSE/RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, UNDER KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT. THE GOVERNMENT PASSED THE AMENDMENT UNDER SECTION 94 OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, AMIDST THE ABSENCE OF THE OPPOSITION PARTIES IN THE ASSEMBLY SESSION ENDED YESTERDAY AT BELGAUM.

THIS AMENDMENT WILL HELP LAKHS OF RURAL POOR AND URBAN POOR WHO DO NOT HAVE A ROOF ON THEIR HEAD.

BOREWELL/OPEN WELL DRILLING WITHIN BBMP LIMITS-OBTAIN PERMISSION

THE KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT HAS NOTIFIED THAT UNDER THE KARNATAKA GROUND WATER(REGULATION AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT ACT)2011, ANY PERSON/S DESIROUS OF DRILLING A BOREWELL OR AN OPEN WELL MUST OBTAIN/SEEK/GET/ THE PERMISSION FROM THE APPROPRIATE JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY. BWSSB HAS THE POWERS TO GRANT THE PERMISSION TO DRILL/DIG A WELL OR A BOREWELL WITHIN THE BBMP JURISDICTION.
EXISTING USERS MUST ALSO REGISTER WITH BWSSB.
THE ORDER READS THUS:
11. Grant of permit to extract and use groundwater in the notified area.- (1) Subject to the provisions of any law relating to protection of public sources of drinking water, any user of ground water desiring to drill or dig a well in the notified area for any purpose either on personal or community basis shall apply to the authority for grant of permit for this purpose and shall not proceed with any activity connected with such drilling or digging unless a permit has been granted by the authority.
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made in such form, shall contain such particulars and in such manner accompanied by such fee for different purposes like industrial, commercial entertainment, agricultural and domestic etc., and for different areas, as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), if the Authority is satisfied that it shall not be against public interest to do so, it may grant subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified therein, a permit authorizing drilling or digging of a well for the extraction and use of groundwater. The conditions shall include mandatory provision of artificial recharge structures of appropriate size to be constructed by the applicant within a period as specified by the authority:
Provided that no person shall be refused of a permit unless he has been given an opportunity of being heard.
(4) The decision regarding grant or refusal of their permit shall be intimated by the Authority to the applicant within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application.
(5) In granting or refusing a permit, the Authority shall have regard to the following, namely:-
(a) The purpose for which the groundwater is to be used-domestic, agriculture, industry, commercial, establishments entertainment,-indicate sale/own use or both;
(b) No permit shall be given for water intensive crops like paddy, sugarcane in notified areas;
(c) The existence of other competitive users;
(d) The availability of groundwater and the need to conserve it;
(e) Quantity of groundwater to be drawn;
(f) Quality of groundwater with reference to use;
(g) Spacing of groundwater structures keeping in consideration, the purpose for which the groundwater is to be used.
(h) Long term groundwater level behaviour;
(i) Its likelihood of adversely affecting water availability of any drinking water sources in its vicinity;
(j) Priority may be given for those who adopt sprinkler and drip irrigation system;
(k) Any other factors relevant thereto.
(6) The permit shall be subject to such terms and conditions and in such form as may be prescribed.
12. Registration of existing users in the notified areas.- (1) Every existing user of groundwater in the notified area shall within a period of one hundred twenty days from the date of declaration as notified area by the Government shall apply to the authority for grant of a certificate of a registration recognizing its existing use in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that the authority may entertain any such application after the expiry of the said period of one hundred and twenty days if it is satisfied that the user was prevented by sufficient cause from filing application in time.
(2) The details to be furnished in an application under sub-section (1) shall include the following, namely:-
(a) The description of the source of groundwater, such as type of well, its exact location;
(b) The lifting device used;
(c) The quantity of ground water withdrawal and hours of operation per day;
(d) The total period of use in each year;
(e) The purpose or purposes for which groundwater is being extracted;
(f) In case the requirement of ground water is for purpose of drinking water, the approximate population to be served;
(g) In case of irrigation well, the location and extent of area irrigated; and the crops grown;
(h) In the case of State and Central Government, Local authorities or Community run water supply schemes, the details of the services involved in addition to the quantities of ground water extracted, the diversion or the pumping points and their locations.
(3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Authority may, after such enquiry as it may deem fit and after satisfying itself, grant a registration certificate in such form, for such period and subject to such condition as may be prescribed.
 (4) The decision regarding the grant or refusal of the certificate of registration shall be intimated by the authority to the applicant within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the application.
(5) In granting or refusing a certificate of registration under sub-section (3) the Authority shall have due regard to the following:-
(a) The purpose for which the groundwater is to be used;
(b) In case of applicants growing water intensive crops like paddy and sugarcane, an undertaking shall be obtained from them for change of heavy duty crops to light duty crops and such change to be incorporated in the certificate of registration.
(c) The existence of other competitive users;
(d) The availability of groundwater and the need to conserve it; quantity of groundwater to be drawn;
(e) Quality of groundwater with reference to use;
(f) Spacing of groundwater structures keeping in consideration, the purpose for which ground water is to be used;
(g) Long term groundwater level behaviour;
(h) Any other factors relevant thereto.
(6) The certificate of registration shall be in such form as may be prescribed.
(7) Pending the communication by the authority of the decision on the application under sub-section (1), every existing user of ground water in the notified area shall be entitled to the continued use of ground water in the same manner and to the same quantity as he was entitled prior to the date of his application.
(8) If a registered well becomes defunct this fact should be immediately brought to the notice of the authority by the user of groundwater and shall seal the defunct bore well in order to avoid untoward incidents. 

HIRANANDANI UPSCALE - UNDER LOKAYUKTA INVESTIGATION

HIRANANDANI UPSCALE BEING DEVELOPED UNDER ONE OF ITS GROUP OF COMPANIES CALLED SAUDELA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD IS UNDER INVESTIGATION.
THE PROJECT IS UNDER SERIOUS TROUBLE FOR VIOLATIONS.

GROUNDWATER WILL BE PUBLIC PROPERTY VERY SOON

Groundwater as Public Property

The Ministry of Water Resources has formulated the draft National Water Policy (2012) guided by certain basic principles so that there is unified national perspective in planning, development and management of water resources including ground water resources. The draft National Water Policy Inter alia says that water not only as a scarce resource but also as a sustainer of life and ecology. Therefore, water needs to be managed as a community resource held by the State, under public trust doctrine to achieve food security, livelihood and equitable and sustainable development for all. Existing Acts, such as Indian Easements Act, 1882, Irrigation Acts, etc. may have to be modified accordingly in as much as it appears to give proprietary rights to a land owner on groundwater under his/her land.

DLF BEGUR FILE WITH BMTF

THE BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE HAS SEIZED THE DLF (BEGUR-BANGALORE SOUTH)BUILDING PLAN FILE FROM THE TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BDA FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
MORE ARRESTS ARE EXPECTED.

Unauthorised constructions in Bangalore and the observation of The High Court Of Karnataka

Unauthorized constructions and the observations of the high court of Karnataka

12-09-2012-Reported in a section of the press.
The high court on Wednesday took the BBMP officials to task again for their alleged inaction against un authorised constructions in the city.
The high court has directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) commissioner to instruct the chief engineers of all the zones to collect information over unauthorised constructions and deviations in their respective zones and initiate action—both disciplinary as well as criminal prosecution—against jurisdictional officers guilty of failing to prevent the construction and file the report by September 21.
Justice Ram Mohan Reddy observed that failure to prevent the unauthorised constructions or deviations in the constructions of buildings by the jurisdictional BBMP officers has turned out to be a menace for Bangaloreans. Petitions are being filed day in and out in the high court and orders are being passed.
The judge observed that it is the stock statement of every jurisdictional officer that he was not deputed in that particular ward when the unauthorised building was erected.
One Jahagidar AA and others had filed a petition in the high court. He is the owner of a property at Ex-servicemen Colony, RT Nagar. One Prem, the owner of the property on the south of the petitioner’s property on August 18, 2009, had come to mark the location to drill borewell just a few feet from the property of the petitioner. The next day, he came with heavy vehicles to dig the borewell and started digging and damaging the compound walls.
He also started digging pits and erecting foundation pillars near the petitioner’s property. The petitioners contended that he is illegally constructing third floor, without the sanction plan. The petitioners further contended that they have complained to the officials right from the beginning, but no action had been taken.
Justice Reddy observed that the officials did not prevent the construction of the building by the owner. The judge also observed that what is not forthcoming is the issue of a completion certificate as required by Section 310 of the Act and it is not known how Prem was permitted to occupy the building.

Observing that failure on the part of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) officials had resulted in unauthorised constructions that are a public menace, the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed the BBMP Commissioner to initiate action against those who condoned such violations.

Justice Ram Mohan Reddy issued the direction while hearing a petition complaining about construction of a building in R.T. Nagar in violation of the sanctioned plan and building byelaws.

Data and action

The court directed the Commissioner to instruct the Chief Engineers of all the zones to collect data on the unauthorised constructions and — both encroachments and byelaw deviations — and then initiate disciplinary and criminal action against the jurisdictional officials who had failed to prevent such illegalities.

The sought a report from the Commissioner in this regard by September 21.

“Failure to prevent unauthorised constructions or deviations in constructions by jurisdictional officers has turned out to be a menace to citizens. Several petitions are being filed complaining about such illegal constructions and action is initiated only after the court issues directions,” Justice Reddy observed.

The court also pointed out that whenever such petitions are filed, the usual reply by the jurisdictional officials is that they were not in charge of the area at the time of the construction.

The court was dealing with the petition, filed by one Jahagirdar A.A., a resident of Ex-Servicemen Colony in R.T. Nagar. The petitioner complained that one Prem Prakash Gupta was able to construct a building in violation of byelaws and sanctioned plan despite complaints submitted to the BBMP officials.

On a court directive, the BBMP’s jurisdictional engineer, who inspected the building, told the court the terrace floor was constructed with 294 per cent deviation and that there was about 40 to 50 per cent overall deviation from the setback norms.

BUILDING VIOLATIONS AND DEVIATIONS AT BANGALORE

BUILDINGS WHICH ARE NOT BUILT OR CONSTRUCTED AS PER THE BYE LAW AND SANCTIONED BUILDING PLAN ARE CALLED DANGEROUS BUILDINGS.

WHO IS BENEFITED BY THIS DEVIATION OR VIOLATION OR ILLEGAL/UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION?

THE BUILDER OR THE OWNER!!!! NATURALLY  !!!!!!!!!!
WHO IS THE LOSER?  THE FOOLISH BUYER!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!

ESPECIALLY IN THE GROUP HOUSING OR APARTMENTS, THE BUYERS OF SUCH ILLEGAL/UNAUTHORISED OR BUILDINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED BY DEVIATING THE PLAN OR BY VIOLATING THE BYE LAW OR BY CONSTRUCTING THE APARTMENTS BEYOND THE SANCTIONED FAR OR ADDITIONAL FLOOR OR SETBACK DEVIATION, THE FOOLISH BUYER, WHO, GOES BY THE BANK LOAN SANCTION IS THE ACTUAL LOSER.

THE BUYER IS MISLEAD BY THE SELLER/AGENTS/OWNERS, THAT THE BANKS HAVE APPROVED THE PROJECT AND THE HAPLESS, INNOCENT AND UNSUSPECTING BUYER WHO IS TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THE BANK LOAN, IS MADE TO BELIEVE AND UNDERSTAND THAT EVERYTHING IS CLEAR, PERFECT AND LEGITIMATE AND BUY THE PROPERTY.

MANY SUCH BUYERS FEEL THE HEAT, WHEN THEY DO NOT GET THE KATHA OR WHEN THEY WANT TO SWITCH THE LOAN FROM ONE BANK TO THE OTHER OR WHEN THEY WANT TO SELL IT OR WHEN THEY ARE MADE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ISSUE IS MUCH GREATER THAN THEY THOUGHT.

THE BUYERS OF SUCH PROPERTIES(DEVIATION AND VIOLATION) ARE TAKEN FOR A JOLLY RIDE BY THE SELLERS/AGENTS/OWNERS AND BUILDERS. 

Constructing and selling apartments which are not in conformity with the bye laws or which have deviations is a clear case of cheating.

DEROGATORY REMARKS OR ADVERSE CRITICISM OR MESSAGES IN THE INTERNET WEBSITES MAY LAND YOU IN SERIOUS TROUBLE:

READ THIS !!!!

Two Air India employees were arrested in May 2012 for allegedly posting derogatory remarks/criticizing the Supreme Court Orders and were arrested under the IT Act

Be it the case of a powerful minister`s son, the girls or the Air India crew members, internet users are increasingly getting a message that they have to be wary of what they post. But the question really is as to who decides and how on where to draw the line between freedom of expression and offensiveness.

Important Issue is:

- When does an online comment amount to just civil defamation, and when does it become false or offensive message as defined by section 66 A of the IT act?

- Does IT Law define 'offensive' or 'menacing' messages, so what guidelines can the police use to apply apply these sections?