By : M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru : The BDA cannot issue notices to those unauthorized occupants who have perfected their titles by adverse possessions of more than 12 years.The BDA Secretary issued illegal eviction notice in respect of site No 3970 3RD MAIN ROAD 17 E CROSS Banashankari 2nd stage Bangalore : 560070 who are in settled possession asserting possession and ownership in himself, openly, peacefully and uninterruptedly to the knowledge of BDA, for more than 30 years, in blatant violations of several court orders and specially reported judgment in John B. James And Others vs Bangalore Development Authority ... on 7 August, 2000 which clearly held that "If anyone, who has trespassed into BDA land or in unauthorized possession of BDA land, has put up a structure and completes and accomplishes the act of possession and continues in such settled possession asserting possession and ownership in himself, openly, peacefully and uninterruptedly to the knowledge of BDA, for more than 12 years, then it is possible for him to contend that he has perfected his title to such property by adverse possession and consequently the title of BDA stood extinguished. It is needless to say that such adverse possession for 12 years should be subsequent to the date of vesting of land in BDA.”,.BDA secretary need to revoke such notices before they are quashed by courts. BDA has regularsied re-allotted and Re-Conveyed half site instead of full 80x60 site belonging to Late Muddappa .The BDA Secretary issued illegal eviction notice in respect of No 3970 3RD MAIN ROAD 17 E CROSS Banashankari 2nd stage Bangalore : 560070 in blatant violations of BDA Act and several court orders instead of re-allotting Regularizing and Re-Conveying SITE UNDER 38 C(1)(a) in the year 1979 as per BDA Policy as per regularisation and re-allotment of sites as resolved by Proceedings of the meeting of the BDA, Bangalore held on Saturday the 21st June, 1980 in Subject No. 629 which gives all power to other regularisation by re-allotment cases in other extensions which are pending for a long time, so that the cases of other revenue site owners may also be solved . Re-allotment and Re-Convey section of BDA is headed by Assistant commissioner Grade officer and if completes his job several sites get legally regularized and BBMP get more taxes with A khata properties. The AC till today does not have a complied compendium of re-convey resolutions as he has failed to provide me Under RTI all resolutions passed by CITB/BDA which need to be implemented whether somebody greets them or not and a reminder RTI is again filed by me . The BDA policy as publicly declared on 14-07-1978 states that whoever has purchased revenue site earlier to 01-05-1974 is eligible to re allotment,Accordingly BDA Re Allotted site number 3971 to Lakshmamma , in the similar way BDA was supposed to Re Allot site Number 3970 which was part of the site owned by their father in law.,But did not allot it to Radhamma and it is violation of section 38-c of BDA Act. as there was a CITB resolution for re-allotment . BDA is again in news for frauds and discrimination and Dhoka in re-allotments of sites. Assistant commissioner (Re-convey & Re-allotment) Bangalore Development Authority is requested to stop this discrimination and immediately execute the sale deed in favor of Radhamma the owner of site Number 3970 , When both sites 3971 and 3970 were brought under in 38 C(1)(a) Re-allotment scheme in the year 1979 (Earlier to 1979 it was not in the re-allotment scheme) In Banshnakari 2nd stage why one is Re-Allotted and another is not Re-Allotted. Is officers need "something” for re-allotment of site number 3970 Which comes under the provisions of 38 C(1)(a) in the year 1979 as per BDA Policy?. Banashankari CITB and was developed and handed over to the BBMP in 1995. Prior to that, in 1968, the City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) had notified the land, under the SEVERAL villages acquisition.Banashankari , under whose jurisdiction SITE Number 3070 falls, was developed and handed over to the BBMP in 1995. Prior to that, in 1968, the City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) had notified the land, under the villages Gavipura, Sunkenahally and Gerahally among others for acquisition.In 1979, the board formulated a re-conveyance and re-allotment scheme for the area under CITB resolution No. 629 and other related resulutions passed by CITB/BDA and the property owners were asked to file their applications with documents for reconveyance. No doubt, it is true that the word 'reconveyance' has not been used in Resolution No. 629 and instead the words used are 'regularisation' and 'reallotment' of site. But it is implicit in the resolution of the BDA that what is really meant by regularisation and reallotment of the site was only reconveyance of the site.The BDA reconveyed several sites including 3071 leaving 3070 , as a site which should have been reconvyed to legal heirs of site owner under the Re-conveyance and Re-allotment scheme, .Re-Convey by way of re-allotment and regularisation and executing sale deed by BDA in respect of No 3970 3RD MAIN ROAD 17 E CROSS Banashankari 2nd stage Bangalore : 560070 ( 40x60) feet in the name of Smt Radhamma w/o M. Rangappa as she is legal heirs to the property which was earlier part of 80x60 site of which 3971 site number is already Re-allotted and Regularised (re-conveyed ) and registered by BDA. As per regularisation and re-allotment of sites as resolved by Proceedings of the meeting of the BDA, Bangalore held on Saturday the 21st June, 1980 in Subject No. 629 which gives all power to other regularisation by re-allotment cases in other extensions which are pending for a long time, so that the cases of other revenue site owners may also be solved. I request you to immediately register the property No 3970 3RD MAIN ROAD 17 E CROSS Banashankari 2nd stage Bangalore : 560070 in my name as per BDA re-convey policy as BDA has already registered the property No 3971 3RD MAIN ROAD 17 E CROSS Banashankari 2nd stage Bangalore : 560070 which was earlier part of 80x60 owned by my late husband's father . It is held that "...Even if it is assumed that the basis for the allotment of sites to the appellants was not the same as has been provided by the Amendment Act under Section 38-C, but that would not invalidate the allotments because the deeming fiction crated by Section 9 of the Amendment Act would bring the allotments within the purview of Section 38-C. The effect of the deeming fiction is that even though these allotments may not have been made under Section 38-C they would be saved by Section 9 of the Amendment Act by virtue of the deeming fiction."