Proposed penalty and Jail Terms for Traffic Rule Violation under RTS Bill 2015 Increase in the penalty in the proposed Road Transport & Safety Bill

       The Ministry of Road Transport & Highways has proposed a draft Road Transport & Safety Bill which after wide public consultation has been circulated to the concerned Ministries for their comments before bringing it to the Cabinet. The Bill has included several reforms, including a major focus on the safety on roads and increase in the penalties for various offences. Based on the inputs received from the general public as well as other stakeholders, the penalties proposed in the first draft were rationalized. Even so, the penalties now proposed in the fourth draft reflect a substantial increase in the quantum of penalties, as indicated in the comparative table attached.

    The quantum of punishment is way above that provided in the present Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.The penalties are not only in form of graded pecuniary fines but also imprisonment, naming and shaming, community service etc. The quantum of penalties proposed will be higher for the repeat offences. There would be demerit points for the offences leading to suspension of the license. The Ministry proposes that the schedule stating the quantum of punishment may be changed on analysis of the data related to reasons of offences.

Section under which offence is punishable	Existing fines As per MV Act, 1988 (Minimum)	Existing fines As per MV Act, 1988 (Maximum)	Proposed fine as per RTS Bill 2015 (Minimum)	Proposed fine as per RTS Bill 2015 (Maximum)
(1)	(2)	(3)	(6)	(7)
177 General provision of punishment of offences
First offence		Upto Rs. 100/-	Rs. 2500	Same
Subsequent offence		Upto Rs. 300/-	Rs. 5000
180 Allowing un-authorised persons to drive vehicles		Upto 3 months imprisonment or fine upto Rs. 1000/- or with both	2, 3-wheelers Rs.1000 fine and/or Imprisonment for 1 month	MMV and HMV Rs. 5000 and/or Imprisonment for 2 months.
181. Driving vehicles in contravention of section 3 or section 4		Upto 3 months imprisonment or fine upto Rs. 500/- or with both	2, 3-wheelers 1st offence – Rs.1000 fine and/or Imprisonment for 1 month Repeat – Rs. 2500 and/ or 2 months imprisonment. Also community service of 15 hours.	MMV and HMV 1st Offence – Rs. 5000 and/or Imprisonment for 2 months. Repeat – Rs. 15000 and/ or 2 months’ imprisonment. Also community service of 15 hours.
183 (1) Driving at excessive speed		First offence Upto Rs. 400/- Subsequent Upto Rs. 1000/-	Motor Cycles and 2- wheelers Names of all offenders shall be published in newspapers · Speeding by more than 5 kmph but less than 9 kmph- Fine of Rs. 1000 · Speeding by more than 9 kmph but less than 19 kmph- Fine of Rs. 1500 · Speeding by more than 19 kmph- Fine of Rs. 2000 and/or impounding of the vehicle for a month and/or suspension of license for a month and/ or Refresher Training Subsequent - Fine of Rs. 3,000 and/or impounding of the vehicle for 3 months and/or suspension of license for 3 months and/ or Refresher Training	MMV and HMV Names of all offenders shall be published in newspapers · Speeding by more than 5 kmph but less than 9 kmph- Fine of Rs. 1000 · Speeding by more than 9 kmph but less than 19 kmph- Fine of Rs. 1500 · Speeding by more than 19 kmph- Fine of Rs. 2000 and/or impounding of the vehicle for 1 month and/or cancellation of licence for one year; Suspension of permit for six months and/ or Refresher Training Subsequent - Fine of Rs. 5,000 and/or impounding of the vehicle for 3 months and/or license suspension for 3 months and/or refresher training
183 (2) To make an employee to drive at excessive speed		First offence Upto Rs. 300/- Subsequent Upto Rs. 500/-	2-wheeler and 3-wheeler Punishment same as above but duration of impounding of vehicle shall be twice as long	HMV and MMV Punishment same as above but duration of impounding of vehicle shall be twice as long
183 A First offence Subsequent offence	New Provision		1st Offence Rs. 500 2nd Offence Rs. 1,000 and 1 month licence suspension Subsequent Offence – Rs. 1,500 and 1 month licence suspension and Refresher Training
184. Driving dangerously First offence Subsequent offence		Upto 6 months imprisonment or fine upto Rs. 1000/- Upto 2 years imprisonment or fine upto Rs. 2000/- or both	Dangerous Lane Changing Dangerous passing or overtaking 1st Offence – Rs. 2500 and/or 15 hours community service and/or three days imprisonment Subsequent – Rs. 5000 and/or 30 hours community service and/or 1 week imprisonment and/or refresher training
185. Drunken Driving or driving under influence of narcotic substance			General Drivers	Drivers of HMVs, Educational Institution Buses, Vehicles carrying Hazardous Goods etc.
A) Drunken driving First offence Subsequent offence (within 3 years)		Detects presence of alcohol in blood exceeding 30mg. in 100 ml. Upto 6 months imprisonment or fine upto Rs. 2000/- or with both Upto 2 years imprisonment or fine upto Rs. 3000/- or with both	(Same punishment levied on all BAC > 20.0 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood) 1st Offence – Rs. 5000 and/or 50 hours community service and/or 6 months licence suspension. Subsequent –Rs. 10,000 + Suspension of Licence for one year	(Same punishment levied on all BAC > 20.0 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood) 1st Offence – Rs. 10,000 and/or 6 months licence suspension Subsequent –Rs. 20,000+ 1-6 months imprisonment + 1 year licence suspension
B) Driving under influence of narcotic substance: First offence B) Subsequent offence		Upto 6 months imprisonment or fine upto Rs. 2000/- or with both Subsequent Upto 2 years imprisonment or fine upto Rs. 3000/- or with both	1st Offence – Rs. 10,000 and/or 6 months licence suspension Subsequent – Rs. 20,000 and/or 6-12 months imprisonment and/or 30 days impounding, 12 months licence suspension	Fines for LMVs, MMVs and HMVs are the same
186. Driving when mentally or physically unfit: First offence Subsequent offence		Upto Rs. 200/- Upto Rs. 500/-	Rs. 5,000 (No provision for subsequent offence)	Same (No provision for subsequent offence)
192. Using vehicle without registration First offence Subsequent offence	Rs. 2,000/- SubsequentRs. 5,000/- or imprisonment upto one year or both	Upto Rs. 5,000/- Subsequent Rs. 10,000/- or imprisonment upto one year or both	2, 3-wheeler 1st Offence – Rs. 1,500 and 1 month impounding Subsequent– Rs. 3,000 and 2 months impounding	MMV and HMV 1st Offence – Rs. 5,000 and 2 months impounding Subsequent – Rs. 10,000 and 4 month impounding
192A. Using vehicle without permit First offence Subsequent offence	Rs. 2,000/- Subsequent-Rs. 5,000/- or imprisonment of not less than three months or both	Rs. 5,000/- Subsequent Rs. 10,000/- or imprisonment upto one year or both	2, 3-wheeler 1st Offence – Rs. 1,500 Subsequent – Rs. 3,000 and 1 months impounding	MMV and HMV 1st Offence – Rs. 5,000 Subsequent – Rs. 10,000 and 1 month impounding
198. Unauthorized interference with vehicle (* In case the tampering involves emission control device fitted by the manufacturer.)	Upto Rs. 100/-		1st Offence — Rs. 5,000 and/or 3 months imprisonment Subsequent – Rs. 10,000 and 3 months imprisonment	Same

 Note:

1. The draft Road Transport and Safety Bill, in addition to fines and imprisonment used by the MV Act, 1988, also use other mechanism of enforcement such as –

a. Community Service

b. Impounding (or immobilization) of Vehicles for a specified period

c. Suspension or cancellation of licences

d. Compulsory refresher training

e. Award of penalty points, accumulation of which above a certain limit in a specified time period leads to loss of driving privileges or impounding or immobilisation of the vehicle

2. The penalties are provided in Schedules II, III and V. Section 334, read with Section 14 of the draft RTS Bill delegates to the National Authority to amend these schedules and hence the penalties for each offence.

3. Section 337 of the draft RTS Bill also confer authority on the Central Government to amend the schedules through a notification from time to time.

4. Thus the penalties specified in the draft Bill can be amended from time to time by the Central Government or the National Authority to ensure that they have a punitive as well as deterrent effect.

BDA SITE ALLOTMENT AT KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT AND APPROXIMATE PRICES

BDA-SITE ALLOTMENT IN KEMPE GOWDA LAYOUT- PRICES (approximate)                         4-4-2015
         

BDA is all set to invite applications for the allotment of approximately 5000 sites in Kempe Gowda layout within few months and has sent the price proposals to the Government and it is learnt that the prices of the sites might be in the range of

Rs900/- for economically weaker sections and Rs2,500/- for 50 feetX80 feet Site.

a). 20 X 30 feet = Rs 900/sq ft for economically weaker sections. And general category = Rs 1,800/sq ft.

b). 30 X 40 feet = Rs 2,000/sq ft.(Rs24,00,000/- + Stamp Duty at 5.6% + 1% Registration Fee)

c). 40 X 60 feet = Rs 2,250/sq ft. .(Rs454,00,000/- + Stamp Duty at 5.6% + 1% Registration Fee)

d). 50 X 80 feet = Rs 2,500/sq ft. .(Rs1,00,00,000/- + Stamp Duty at 5.6% + 1% Registration Fee)

          The BDA will execute a  lease agreement with a tenure of 10 years and within 2 years of the execution of lease agreement and the possession, the alllottee has to build the residence/house, otherwise, the BDA may cancel the lease as per the conditions of the lease agreement.

THE NEXT LEVEL OF DRAMA WHICH MIGHT UNFOLD SOON

          It is quite natural to fix the price at an abnormally high price and then the politicians and the local XXXXXXX may protest and bring down or reduce the price to a reasonable level.

MANYATA TECH PARK - A PRESS REPORT

MANYATA DENOTIFICATION –A PRESS REPORT

      The recent report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has exposed that Manyata Tech Park in Hebbal had illegally grabbed majority of its land. The tech park is a mixed development project spread across about 300 acres. Of this, over 160 acres was public land which Manyata Developers got from different government agencies, though there was no provision for this. 

      Manyata Developers is a real estate company based in Bangalore, headed by Reddy Veeranna. Manyata tech park has commercial spaces including a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and mixed residential development. Manyata tech park is spread across 300 acres in Hebbal. Pic courtesy: manyatadevelopers.com In this case, it is clear that the developer could not have gotten the land without some major favours from two governments, that of S M Krishna and Dharam Singh. The report, which exposes other major scams also, is now being discussed by a legislative committee. The committee has had a preliminary meeting, and has sought more time to discuss the report.

      Manyata Embassy Business Park, an IT SEZ (Special Economic Zone) is one of the biggest tech parks in the city. The land grab saga is spread over many years, starting from the year 2000 and ending only in 2008. Overall, it got about 170 acres from government, of which only eight acres was legal. According to Manyata Developers' website, out of the total 300 acres, 88 has been used for landscaping and about 105 acres for civic amenities (roads, drainage systems etc). 2000: Government approves 8 acres for Manyatha‘s IT park. But Manyata asks KIADB to acquire 100 acres 2000: KIADB decide on its own to oblige Manyata with about 98 acres, against its mandate 2004: BDA notifies agricultural land for forming Arkavathy Layout. S M Krishna orders that 131 acres of land should be left out and acquired on behalf of Manyata. 2006: Dharam Singh orders 60 acres to be given to Manyata. 2007: BDA finally denotifies 60 acres from Arkavathy Layout. 2008: Manyata requests 25 acres from this and another 2 acres, to get 27 acres. It also gets 43 acres from farmers whose land was originally notified by BDA and then denotified at the Governor's recommendation. It got the 8 acres initially, in the year 2000, on applying for approval of IT park to the state High Level Committee, of the Department of Commerce and Industries. Manyata told the committee that it already owned 190 acres and needed only another five more. CAG report says that Manyata did not in fact own the entire 190 acres, and that this number includes the land that it expected to get from KIADB later (around 100 acres). The committee granted 8 acres based on this, and KIADB (Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board) was asked to acquire this land and give it to Manyata. Soon after this, Manyata asked KIADB to acquire not eight, but 100 acres for the project. It said that the project was for a mixed development, including residential area. KIADB has no powers to decide on land acquisition on its own; it can only acquire land when the government asks it to. But in this case, the Board acquired over 99 acres for Manyata in Rachenahalli and Nagavara villages. So instead of the eight, the company got 99 acres. After this first illegal allotment, the next happened in 2007, of 27 acres. In 2001, the S M Krishna government had decided to acquire 130 acres for a separate biotech park planned by Manyata. In 2004, when BDA notified agricultural land for forming Arkavathy Layout, Krishna ordered that 131 acres of land should be left out of the notification and acquired on behalf of Manyata. The company's request for denotification was pending before BDA's Denotification Committee.

      Government's IT/BT department, which was supposed to work with Manyata on the biotech park project, informed BDA that Manyata had shelved the project. The department was going ahead with the project on its own, and needed only 50 acres to be acquired. BDA then rejected Manyata's request for denotification. But the next Chief Minister Dharam Singh came to the company's rescue. He said that IT/BT was a thrust area for government, and hence Krishna's 2004 order should be implemented. A senior officer at CAG says, on condition of anonymity, that Manyata had not mentioned the name of the project in any of the applications, but only says that it needs land for an ‘IT park'. Dharam Singh ordered that only 60 acres needed to be given to Manyata instead of 131. Based on this, BDA finally denotified 60 acres from Arkavathy Layout, in 2007. CAG report says that, by doing this, public interest to form the layout was subjugated for the interests of a private party. Surprisingly, after all this, Manyata did not request government to acquire this entire 60 acres on its behalf, but only 25. It also asked for an additional 2 acres to be acquired separately. By now, the company had acquired 127 acres from the government illegally.

      The company got another 43 acres for its use a year later - this was done in a roundabout way. Soon after government denotified 60 acres for Manyata, some owners of the notified land said that they should also get this favour. Together, their land came to 49 acres; of this, BDA was yet to take possession of 43 acres in Rachenahalli and Dasarahalli villages.   "We can only roar from the streets. The only option is for someone to take these cases to court" - MLA Narendra Babu When government did not heed their request, these owners went to Rameshwar Thakur, Governor at the time. Thakur recommended that 43 acres, which BDA had not acquired already, should be denotified. He said that this is in public interest, since poor farmers would be benefitted. So in May 2008, 43 acres was denotified for the sake of farmers. But the very next month, Manyata applied for a NOC (No Objection Certificate) to BDA to use these same 43 acres for a project, without giving more details of the project, in the application. The NOC was soon granted, and now Manyata had 170 acres of land for its use, as opposed to the 8 acres it was supposed to get originally. The CAG officer says, "Manyata may have made a joint development agreement or so with the farmers. Generally, there was a lack of co-ordination between different departments on what was happening. Manyata took advantage of this, and applied for land repeatedly

      What action will the government take? Though CAG has presented the report, it will take some time before any action may be taken. The report was presented in the winter session of the legislative assembly in December. Both opposition parties - Congress and JD(S) - asked for the session to be extended by a day, so that they could discuss the report. But the Speaker had turned this down, and there has been no discussions. Congress MLA Narendra Babu says that nothing could be done because of this. "We can only roar from the streets. The only option is for someone to take these cases to court," he says. Manyata Techpark. Pic courtesy: manyatadevelopers.com But CAG reports go to Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the state legislature. PAC consists of 15 MLAs and five MLCs, and is chaired by T B Jayachandra, Congress MLA (Sira constituency) and Deputy Leader of opposition in the assembly. PAC is supposed to go through the reports para by para, identify important cases, and call the concerned Principal Secretaries of different departments for hearings. The Principal Secretaries will be asked to give explanations in each case. One or two senior members of CAG will also be present to assist PAC; they can also ask questions to Principal Secretaries. The meeting proceedings are recorded in-camera and are not open to public. So far, only one meeting has been held on the BDA report, on December 21st. The CAG officer says that this was only a preliminary meeting and not much has been discussed. PAC has sought more time to discuss the report. The number of meetings depend on the gravity of issues - the scale of financial loss, impact on public interest, how contemporary the issue is etc. Sometimes, only a couple of hearings are required, but there are also those like the report on KIADB released last year. PAC had held 14-16 hearings on this report, which had indicted former Chief Minister B S Yedyurappa. M P Nadagouda of JD(U), a former PAC member, says that only about one-twentieth of the report is usually chosen for discussion. "PAC consists of policy makers and hence they focus on macro level issues," says a senior bureaucrat at Vidhana Soudha. Since the proceedings are confidential, PAC members were not ready to divulge more details.

      PAC Chairman Jayachandra could not be reached for comment. PAC will give its recommendations Once the hearings are over, PAC will submit a recommendation report to the government, which is a public document. This report is placed in assembly and goes to different government departments.

      The Vidhana Soudha officer says, "The recommendations are more like directives, and departments are supposed to implement them directly. Usually this report is not contested in the assembly; it is accepted as is. Action does happen based on it." After some time, PAC will present an Action Taken Report (ATR) on how much of its recommendations have been implemented. If no action was taken, departments have to give explanation for this. Though assembly elections are approaching, the CAG officer is confident that all hearings on the BDA report would be completed before this.

AKRAMA - SAKRAMA MAY BE OPERATIONAL FROM MID MARCH OR BY THE END OF MARCH

IT IS LEARNT THAT THE REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED LAYOUTS AND CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE MUNICIPAL AREAS INCLUDING THE BBMP MAY BE NOTIFIED AND THE DEPARTMENT WILL BE RECEIVING THE APPLICATIONS FROM MID MARCH OR BY THE END OF MARCH, IF EVERYTHING GOES WELL AND IF THERE IS NO STAY ORDER FROM THE COURTS.

NATIONAL HOUSING BANK - REPORT

AS PER THE REPORT, BANGALORE HAS RECORDED A GOOD TREND AND DEVELOPMENT IN HOUSING AND THE AVERAGE GROWTH IS 2%, BEST WHEN COMPARED TO OTHER CITIES.

THE REPORT WITH GRAPHICS

ITY WISE HOUSING PRICE INDEX FOR THE QUARTER APRIL-JUNE, 2014 CITIES 2007 Index Apr-Jun 2012 Index Jul-Sep 2012 Index Oct-Dec 2012 Index Jan- Mar 2013 Index Apr-Jun 2013 Index Jul-Sep 2013 Index Oct- Dec 2013 Index Jan-March 2014 Index Apr-June 2014 Index Hyderabad 100 85 84 90 88 84 88 93 95 95 Faridabad 100 217 216 205 207 202 204 209 209 211 Patna 100 140 138 151 152 147 150 159 150 154 Ahmedabad 100 174 180 191 192 186 191 197 209 213 Chennai 100 309 312 314 310 303 318 330 349 355 Jaipur 100 78 85 87 112 110 108 105 101 102 Lucknow 100 171 175 189 183 187 191 185 194 193 Pune 100 200 201 205 221 219 219 235 232 241 Surat 100 145 138 150 140 142 145 154 165 161 Kochi 100 73 80 87 89 86 86 85 85 86 Bhopal 100 207 206 216 230 227 220 223 226 229 Kolkata 100 196 191 209 197 189 199 196 206 211 Mumbai 100 197 198 217 222 221 222 222 229 233 Bengaluru 100 100 98 106 109 108 107 111 107 108 Delhi 100 172 178 195 202 199 190 196 199 193 Bhubneshwar 100 164 168 172 197 195 193 202 195 196 Guwahati 100 159 158 166 153 147 149 160 154 159 Ludhiana 100 171 168 179 167 157 150 150 145 147 Vijayawada 100 186 181 185 184 174 167 161 160 163 Indore 100 203 196 194 195 184 180 184 181 187 Chandigarh 100 194 191 192 188 183 175 Coimbatore 100 184 178 178 173 170 176 Dehradun 100 183 184 184 186 191 187 Meerut 100 191 189 176 171 165 159 Nagpur 100 163 168 162 175 180 181 Raipur 100 156 155 157 159 166 166

AKRAMA-SAKRAMA- WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF PROPERTIES ELIGIBLE OR WILL BE REGULARISED UNDER THIS SCHEME

PROPERTIES WHICH MIGHT BE REGULARISED UNDER THIS SCHEME

1). D C CONVERTED PROPERTIES WITHOUT APPROPRIATE PLANNING AUTHORITY`S APPROVAL.

2). RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITH 50% DEVIATIONS BOTH IN FAR AND SET BACK.

3). COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH 25% DEVIATIONS BOTH IN FAR AND SET BACK.

B KATHA OR B REGISTER ENTRY FOR PROPERTIES WHICH ARE IRREGULAR

THERE IS ONLY ONE KATHA AS PER THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT AND THERE IS NO LEGAL SANCTITY FOR THE B FORM REGISTER.

APART FROM THE IRREGULARITIES, MANY OTHER ISSUES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE B KATHA OR FORMS.

B KATHA PROPERTIES HAVE ONLY ONE SALE DEED AND AS SOON AS IT IS REGULARISED, TITLE DISPUTES MAY ARISE. IT IS ISSUED ON ANY SALE DEED PERTAINING TO THE JURISDICTION AND THE PAYMENT OF UP TO DATE TAXES AND HAS NO LEGAL VALIDITY AND IT WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AS EVIDENCE IN THE COURT OF LAW

THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOTIFY THE AKRAMA-SAKRAMA SOON, ELIGIBLE B KATHA PROPERTIES CAN BE REGULARISED.

BUT, THE AKRAMA SAKRAMA SCHEME WILL BE CHALLENGE IN THE COURT ONCE AGAIN AND IF IT IS NOT SUCCESSFUL WILL REACH SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FOR `STAY ORDER`.

FAKE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE AND ITS EFFECTS

FAKE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE

What would be the total number of residential high-rise buildings in Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) limits, built during the last five years? 

If the data provided by the BBMP is anything to go by, 97 is the exact number of buildings built in the Capital city between 2009 and 2014, which have been issued official Occupancy Certificates by BBMP. What is more puzzling is the reply given by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the Assembly session last month, confirming that no cases of residential apartments failing to obtain Occupancy Certificates have come to the notice of the government. However, if you are the one who is following the real estate development in the last few years, you would know that this number, 97, is a joke. Numerous residential as well commercial complexes within the city stretching for about 741 km, have mushroomed in the last five years. So, if the official number of buildings that have BBMP's Occupancy Certificates is only 97, what about all other buildings that were built between 2009 to 2014? The figure released by BBMP raises some serious doubts over the actual story behind Occupancy Certificates, its relevancy and dilution due to vague laws. What is Occupancy Certificate? 

According to the building bye-laws of BBMP, every builder should complete the construction or reconstruction of a building for which the licence was obtained. The construction should complete before the expiry of five years from the date of issue of licence. Within one month after the completion of the construction the builder should intimate the Commissioner in writing about the completion. It should be accompanied by a certificate in certified by a registered architect / engineer / supervisor. Along with this, the application for permission to occupy the building should be submitted. “The authority shall intimate the applicant within thirty days of receipt of the intimation whether the application for Occupancy Certificate (OC) is accepted or rejected. In case, the application is accepted, the Occupancy Certificate shall be issued in the form given in Schedule IX provided the building is in accordance with the sanctioned plan,” says the byelaw. In addition, OC should be given after the physical inspection of the building by an official who has to verify if the building has been constructed as per the sanctioned plan and has met the requirement of building byelaws. This includes inspections by the Fire Service Department wherever necessary. In Bengaluru, BBMP and BDA issue Occupancy Certificates. Fake OCs issued by BBMP officials? BBMP ruling party leader N R Ramesh, the corporator of Yediyur ward, who smelled a foul play in Occupancy Certificate episode, calls it as nothing less than a scam. “There is no doubt that more than 97 high rise apartments were constructed in BBMP between 2009 and 2014 and several of them have been occupied in the absence of Occupancy Certificate or perhaps with the fake OC. It appears as though the buyers of the flats were unaware of the absence of Occupancy Certificate or were provided with fake OC’s,” he alleges. N R Ramesh has also filed a complaint against unnamed officials, with Bangalore Metropoiltan Task Force (BMTF) police, where he alleges that there are more than 30,000 buildings that have come up in the city since 2009, but BBMP does not have records of plan sanctions for all these buildings. There were only 1300 plans sanctioned, 350 Commencement Certificates and 95 Occupancy Certificates issued between 2009 and 2014 according to BBMP which suggests foul play in the issue of plan sanctions and other certificates, says Ramesh. He doubts that Occupancy Certificates issued to the buildings other than the official 97 high rises would have been fake. He also suspects a revenue loss to BBMP, as the suspected fake certificates would have been issued after pocketing money from the building owners but not remitting the same to BBMP accounts, which is why no record exists with the BBMP. Case against BBMP officials has been registered under section 441 of KMC Act, and IPC sections 420, 409, 468 and 217. 'There may be fake OCs, we're yet to trace them' BBMP Commissioner Lakshminarayan, when asked about updates in the case of fake OCs, said he has referred the case to Technical Vigilance Cell under Commissioner (TVCC) and they are looking into the matter. Meanwhile, the respective Join Commissioners too were asked to submit a report. So far, only one case of fake certificate has come to light. He said he could not recall the name of th building. He is yet to receive the final report from the TVCC and Joint Commissioners. "I will not claim that all cases are genuine. There may be cases of fake OC and buildings without OC. But we could not trace them yet," Lakshminarayan added. Meanwhile, a senior official from the town planning section, on condiction of anonymity, refuted such charges and assured that the department would go for spot inspection if such cases are brought to the department’s notice. “There have been some instances of the apartment builder violating building bye-law and we have ensured that OC is issued only after the deviation is corrected,” the officer said. The case, however, does not include the Occupancy Certificates issued by Bangalore Development Authority. OC must for utility connections in high rises There have been cases of the flat buyers registering and occupying the house even before obtaining the Occupancy Certificate, mostly because there was no strict law in place that prohibited buyers from occupying the house. A house would get permanent water, UGD and electricity connection even before it is certified to be fit for occupancy, by producing a proof of ownership or occupation of premises (latest khata, sale deed, property tax paid, sanction plan, architecture plan, signed by the civil engineer and / or route sketch). Now this has slightly changed. Recently the Urban Development Department issued a circular making it mandatory for people to produce Occupancy Certificates to BESCOM and BWSSB in order to get electricity and water connection. BESCOM Executive Engineer Shanthamallappa said that the department was providing permanent electricity connection to the buildings even in the absence of OC and the new rule has been implemented from December 1, 2014. In yet another development, while addressing mediapersons on January 12, Energy Minister D K Shivakumar said that the new circular will not be applicable for housing units having a built-up area of below 8,000 sq ft and building height of less than 50 ft, which means the rule is applicable only for high rises. BWSSB has already displayed the terms and conditions, which say that buildings that have fourth floor and more have to submit occupancy certificate. Plan sanction is a must for all the buildings to get water connection. 

BESCOM website still displays the old form where it asks the owners to produce either “Proof of Ownership of the premises or Proof of Occupancy”, which means BESCOM hasn’t yet officially announced that OC is mandatory. 

However, if the accusation of fake occupancy certificates turns out to be true, there may not be much coming out of the new rule that makes OC mandatory. Unless the government tightens the noose and puts a full stop to fake occupancy certificate, there is not much meaning to it. Here's the list of 97 buildings that have official Occupancy Certificates issued by BBMP between 2009 and 2014.