Site news

“NOT CIVIL DISPUTE” “IT IS CRIMINAL TRESS PASS” BY BDA CONTRACTOR IN SURVEY NO 101/2B

 
 
Picture of System Administrator
“NOT CIVIL DISPUTE” “IT IS CRIMINAL TRESS PASS” BY BDA CONTRACTOR IN SURVEY NO 101/2B
by System Administrator - Friday, 25 September 2015, 6:14 PM
 

By : M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru : Police need to follow the gazette notification and need tofile FIR against BDA Contractor based on No UDD -629-MNX-97 Dated 6-10-1997 published in Karnataka Gazette dated 6-10-1997 as after this all court orders and proceedings and awards in respect earlier 1994 final notification become infractuus and useless which need not be looked into and provide information on action taken report in respect of Human right commission order HRC 4088/2014 Dated 09-09-2014 in respect of not registering FIR on compliant of Mahesh the farmer to public "PUBLICLY” under section 4(I) (a) (b) (c) (d) RTI Act. Police cannot treat this as civil dispute but it has treat this as criminal Act of tress pass by BDA Contractor and provide action taken report in respect of Human right commission order HRC 4088/2014 Dated 09-09-2014 in respect of not registering FIR despite BDA has not acquired Survey .No 101/2BValgerahalli Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka and allowed BDA contractor blatantly have violated human rights of Mahesh the farmer and owner and allowed tress pass in the property and this survey number Survey .No 101/2BValgerahalli Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka does not feature in BDA Public Notice and the final acquisition notification No Government order No UDD -629-MNX-97 Dated 6-10-1997 published in Karnataka Gazette dated 6-10-1997 in part 111-1 pages 1-7 in respect of Ganana Bharathi Layout _Valagerahalli Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka . BDA issued preliminary notification to acquire certain lands in and around Nagadevanahalli and Valagerahalli of Kengeri Hobli for the formation of Jnanabharathi Layout vide Notification No. BDA/ALAO/A3/139/88-89 dated 19/1/1989 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 19/1/1989, 26/1/1989 and 2/2/1989. Based on this the final acquisition notification No Government order No UDD -629-MNX-97 Dated 6-10-1997 published in Karnataka Gazette dated 6-10-1997 in part 111-1 pages 1-7 in respect of Ganana Bharathi Layout _Valagerahalli Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka . What appears in final notification is finally acquired and what does not appear is finally de-notified whether the they were petitioners or not the petitioners in any court proceedings.All awards court proceddinghs and all mahazars drwn with 1994 final notifications were leaglly buried with new final notification of 1997 and BDA extinguished its property right as per 1994 notification and it gets only property rights fnally notifies in 1997.

Court orders in W.P. No. 16827-34/1994 in respect of G B Layout is very crisp and clear "The respondent are at liberty to proceed with the acquisition in accordance with law pursuant to the preliminary notification issued under Section 19(5) of the Act” .Wherefore liberty was given to issue final notification with reference to preliminary notification of 1989 and not with refrence to petitioners land in question . Contention that court order was issued to Limiting second final notification only to the petitioner lands is not tenable in law as such such specific order was not made by court .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. 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 second final notifications and 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. Wherefore even if W.P. No. 16827-34/1994 final notification was quashed in so for as only petitioners lands in question but it is open to the authorities to omit other owners lands from the second final notification as Government is empowered to omit under the Act and de-notify the lands of other owners whether they were petitioners or not wherefore on this aspect alsosecond Final notification No. UDD-629-MNX-97 dated on 6/10/1997 issued cannot be limited to petitioners alone as it is based on pursuant to the preliminary notification issued under Section 19(5) of the Act” and not on the petitioners of the case.