Site news

THE COURT ORDERS ARE LIMITED TO PETITIONERS NOT THE SECOND FINAL NOTIFICATION

 
 
Picture of System Administrator
THE COURT ORDERS ARE LIMITED TO PETITIONERS NOT THE SECOND FINAL NOTIFICATION
by System Administrator - Tuesday, 30 June 2015, 5:53 AM
 

By : M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bangalore : The BDA AEE /contractor is criminal tress passer in Govt de-notified S.No.101/2B.Usually court orders are limited only to the petitioners because usually relief is given to the persons who approached the court of law .Court orders in W.P. No. 16827-34/1994 of G B Layout and CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4097 OF 2010 in Bondu Ramaswamy & Ors vs Bangalore Development Authority ... on 5 May, 2010 are limited to the petitioners. But the final notifications are not limited to the petitioners as per law . Government issued GNANBHARATHI LAYOUT second Final notification No. UDD-629-MNX-97 dated on 6/10/1997 and Arkavathi Layoutsecond final notificationgazetted on June 18, 2014 and they are not limited to petitioners of respective court orders in W.P. No. 16827-34/1994 of G B Layout and CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4097 OF 2010 in Bondu Ramaswamy & Ors vs Bangalore Development Authority ... on 5 May, 2010. They are limited to only preliminary notifications .But the second final notifications though are issued on the liberty given in the court order they are definitely not limited to petitioners of the respective cases .Second final notifications are issued to the respective preliminary notifications. Preliminary notifications are notification of land and final notifications are de-notifications of land and what appears in final notifications is only notified land and rest is de-notified land.

I have asked ALAO to provide me information and reasons under section 4(I) (d) RTI Act when BDA has no power to overrule BDA Act and new Land Acquisition Act and Government second Final notification No. UDD-629-MNX-97 dated on 6/10/1997 de-notifying certain lands appearing in Preliminary Acquisition notification No ALAO/A3/139/88-89 DATED 19-01-1989 published in Karnataka Gazette dated 19-1-1989 26-1-1989 and 2-2-1989 and firstfinal notification in respect of Ganana Bharathi Layout _ValagerahalliKengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka then how come Additional Land Acquisition Officer BDA transfer 101/2B to engineering department when it is not feature in and it is de-notified in second Final notification No. UDD-629-MNX-97 dated on 6/10/1997 and in similar way Government has de-notified several lands appearing in first final notification and preliminary notification of Arkavathi Layout by issuing second final notificationgazetted on June 18, 2014 making old final notification issued on 2004 its award and Mahzar etc became null and void and BDA cannot claim any rights over firstfinal notificationits award and Mahzar etc even in case of GB Layout . "The second final notification may be issued as per court orders under section 19 of the BDA act superseding the first final notification but second final notification are not limited to petitioners of respective court orders though court orders are usually limited to the petitionersin respect of Banashankari vth stage layout, J.P. NAGAR 8th stage layout, J.P. NAGAR 9th stage layout and GNANBHARATHI LAYOUT in 1997 and ARKAVATHI LAYOUT 2014”.Presently it is immaterial whether W.P. No. 16827-34/1994 of G B Layout or Arkavathi layout court orders areonly applicable to petitioners but preliminary notifications of each layout are applicable only to its respective second final notifications issued by Government and the lands featuring in final notifications are only owned by BDA and not others lands appearing in preliminary notification or first final notification which is dead after issue of second final notification subject to completion other procedural formalities as per law.BDA contractor in connivance with BDA is trying to take forcible entry in S.No, 101/2B valagerahalliitself is illegal and criminal tress pass.There is no dispute about Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 16827-34/1994 and other Writ Petitions quashing The 1994 final notification as far as petitioners land are concerned and Government and BDA was given liberty to re-issue final notification. But once final notification issued as per Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 16827-34/1994 earlier final notification of 1994 awards based on it and mahazars drawn based on it are dead and liquidated and buried beneath law .What is Pertinent to note that Government utilizing this opportunity and liberty Government of Karnataka decided to de-notify lands of other owners whose land was appearing in preliminary notification No. BDA/ALAO/A3/139/88-89 dated 19.01.1989 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 19.01.1989, 26.01.1989 and 02.02.1989 and issued final notification for entire GB Layout in 1997 de-notifying several survey numbers including S.No, 101/2B valagerahalli.Once in final notification is issued for cited preliminary notification andS No 101/2B is not featuring in 1997 government final notificationBDA ownership gets extinguished and earlier awards mahazar get null and void. In the similar way new final notification was issued by Government in respect of Arkavathi Layout gazetted on June 18, 2014 making old final notification issued on 2004 its award and Mahzar etc becamenull and void and BDA cannot claim any rights over old final notification as many owners who did not gone to court got benefits of de-notification.. and BDA cannot claim any rights over old final notification its award and Mahzar etc., it is further submits that, in accordance to the 1997 final notification 101/2B, does not feature in new final notification hence it is not a BDA property .BDA is criminal trespasser.The lands featuring in final notifications are only owned by BDA and not others subject to completion other procedural formalities as per law. The layout plan drawn after final notification in 2001 as approved by BDA did not made any site in S.No, 101/2B valagerahalli .After lapse of 20 years BDA is trying to take forcible entry in S.No, 101/2B valagerahalliitself is illegal and criminal tress pass.One law for second final notification Arkavathi Layout and another for GB Layout second final notification cannot be applied by BDA.

Land acquisition DC and land acquisition officers are helpless before a AEE who is controlling entire BDA and chief engineer. Sri KrishnaMurthy AEE Housing project. Because he calls the shots as he is controlling Rs 200 corore housing project and even Sham Bhatt seems to be his slave as he fails to stop illegal tress pass of Sri Krishna Murthy AEE Housing project in S.No 101/2BValgerahalli Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka which does not feature in second final notification of GB Layout similar to second final notification of Arkavathi Layout. the Government issued final notification UDD -629-MNX-97 DATED 06-10-1997 . about the same land and the early notification what so ever will be stands null and void The 1994 old final notification and its award and Mahzar etc became null and void and BDA cannot claim any rights over old final notification its award and Mahzar etc .In the similar way new final notification was issued by Government in respect of Arkavathi Layout gazetted on June 18, 2014 making old final notification issued on 2004 its award and Mahzar etc became null and void and BDA cannot claim any rights over old final notification. BDA cannot claim any rights over old final notification its award and Mahzar etc., it is further submitted that, in accordance to the 1997 final notification 101/2B, does not feature in new final notification hence it is not a BDA property the is accusedto gain unlawful trying to trespass the property.Sri Krishna Murthy AEE Housing project is facing Lokayukta case in 3026/2014. Let BDA stop construction in S.No 101/2BValgerahalli Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka & wait final outcome in OS NO 26334/2014 as status quo order was issued for both and vacated for both and it is not clearMeans both were asked to maintain status quo and now both are free not to maintain status quo which is technically impossible to implement and case is admitted in OS NO 26334/2014 and Lis is pending . It is no doubt true that by preliminary notifications larger extent of land were notified that they are required for formation of the respective layouts. However, in the declaration certain extent of land out of the lands notified in the preliminary notification were left out. By mere omission of certain lands it is not possible to hold that the declarations are invalid as it is open to the authorities to ommit certain lands from the declaration after considering the representations of the owners, in the light of the prevailing circumstances as to the nature of the land.Kengeri police should restrict the contractor and Sri Kishna Murthy AEE Housing project and stop construction if any carried out by Gowri Infra Pvt Limited . Sri Kishna Murthy AEE Housing project is in hurry and repeating same blunder what housing division has committed in other similar cases and Sri Kishna Murthy AEE Housing project cares too hoots to the order ofhonourable MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY in WRIT PETITION NOS. 12962-12970 of 2012 (LA-BDA). Somehow he want to finish off the 200 core project and vanish from the place without caring rule of law and go back to his parent PWD department leaving BDA in deep financial mess .