By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru: The entire preliminary Notification was issued on 5-9-1988 under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act of 1961 (hereinafter in short called as 'Act') proposing for acquisition of certain lands for public purpose in favour of Aircraft Employees Housing Co-operative Society for formation of residential layout and distribution of sites to its members was totally stayed by Karnataka High Court in WA No 17979/2011 Dated 11-04-2012 .AECS or its members cannot tress pass in the property of owners.. It is submitted that AECS HBCS which claims that state government has initiated acquisition proceedings and notification u/s 4(1) of the acquisition Act has been published on 5-09-1988 .But it is pertinent to note that " the operation and all further proceedings pursuant tothe notification issued under section 4(1) of the lanf acquisition Act dated 15-04-19888 in respect of 86 acres at annexure -R in W.P.No 15051/09 and 05-09-1988 in respect of 358 acres at anexures -S in W.P.No15051/09 be and herby stayed by Karnataka high court in WA No 17979/2011 Dated 11-04-2012 .Wherefore entire story of their title and possessions of AECS falls to ground and Balance of convenience fall to owners of land .Government of Karnataka is requested to take action and set aside the acquisition of land made to AEHBCS as AECS is misusing it. The fraud and forgery start with the name as AECS is the registered name in the co-operation department .But it is not allotted any single square inch of land. It uses the land allotted to AEHBCS which is illegal and AECS is criminal tress passer. AECS is full of forgery . The alleged forgery of official signatures to sell illegally eight sites and 80 sites were added by forging in AECSlayout in east Bengaluru has got bigger. Police are now looking into a complaint that the fraudulent practices involved the sale of 80 more sites in another nearby layout. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had lodged a complaint against Aircraft Employees Co-operative Society (AECS) for allegedly forging signatures of its officials to sell eight sites illegally. Reportedly The authority, which is now convinced of the fraud, has filed a complaint with the Parappana Agrahara police seeking legal action against AECS.Even as this case of forgery by AECS is being investigated by the Parappana Agrahara police, another complaint with the Electronic City police has made allegations that the same society has forged signatures of a former Gram Panchayat (GM) president to include 80 illegal sites in a layout that was approved for 400 sites in 2003.Ananda, the complainant, reportedly has alleged that officials of the society forged the signatures of his wife Rupa, who was the GM president in Chikkabeguru. According to the complaint, the plan for the layout was approved by Rupa in 2003. "The approval was granted for 400 sites. It has now come to light that there are 480 sites and 80 sites were added by forging my wife's signature," the complaint says.The khata for these sites were granted by the BBMP in 2013, but activists fighting against the illegalities by such societies point out that even the initial approval granted by Rupa is illegal as the GM is not the competent body to grant such approvals."All these sites are in violation of the 'BDA site allotment rules'. The BDA is the authority to approve layouts in the area, but the society has formed the layout without BDA's approval and a lot of these sites have already been resold," a source pointed out. In the case that the BDA has filed in Parappana Agrahara, the society had not only forged signatures of BDA officials but also affixed the official seal. However, the BDA is reportedly yet to write to the co-operation department seeking initiation of action against the society, or to the BBMP seeking cancellation of khatas.
Aircraft Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd (AECS) fate will be same as that ofBangalore City Coop Hsg.Socy.Ltd .Many house building co-operative societies who have committed blunders and used middleman's (with agreements and the tenor of that agreement does not leave any manner of doubt that the Estate Agent has charged huge money from the appellant for getting the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the 1894 Act and sanction of layout plan by the BDA) and they loosed the cases in Supreme court of India and same fate is awaited to AECSin view of the law laid down by Apec court in the 1st H.M.T. case(paragraphs 19, 21 and 22), which was followed in 2nd H.M.T. and case and then followed in Vyalikawal House Building Cooperative Society's case and Bangalore City Coop Hsg.Socy.Ltd. as still many cases are pending in supreme court and high court and lower courts against Aircraft Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd (AECS ) by land owners and supreme court order will be applicable to all owners .
I have asked DDLR TOprovide me information and reasonsunder section 4(I) (a) (b) (c) (d) RTI Act 2005 fordelay in dismissing the appeal filed by AECS in DDLR Appeal No. 19 / 2013-14 in view ofWritten arguments and citations and documents filed defendantand in view ofentire acquisition notification of AECS and operation and all further proceedings pursuant to Notification which was issued on 5-9-1988 under Section 4(1) are stayed by HKHC Karnataka High Courtin WA No 17979/2011 Dated 11-04-2012 (Copy Enclosed with this RTI) and despite the fact that AECShave no legitimate title or interest overschedule property and phod done after the joint survey and measurement done by ADLR and its survey team on 15-07 2003 and after AECSaccepted the mutations as per court order in WP 11259-11325/2009Dated 08-06-2009.All revenue records and RTC and Mutations stands legally in the name ofSmt Nagamani Ramesh and compromise between the ex owners and AECS.In view of this Electronic Citypolice officers who havecompletedthe Investigation process inFIR No264/2013 under section 448420419 of IPC and reportedly filed charge sheet against Mr H.Balaji Secretary and Sri N.Devaraj the president of Aircraft Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd (AECS) in respect of tress pass inpropertyS .No 79/10(20 Guntas) ofSingasandara Village Begur Hobli Bangalore South Taluka Opposite ; Manikanata Motor Service Chikkabegur Main Road,Singsandra Village Bangalore : 560068 belonging legally toSmtNagmaniRamesh,W/O K.H. Ramesh as officially and legally AECS does not own S.No 79/10 20 Guntas) ofSingasandara Village Begur Hobli Bangalore South Taluka .The office of DCis THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY under obligation to provide information "PUBLICLY” under section 4(I) (a) (b) (c) (d) RTI Act.
I have asked PIO of DC office toprovide me the information and reasons under section 4(1) (a) (b) (c) (d) for delay in dismissing the appeal filed by AECS in DDLR Appeal No. 19 / 2013-14 in view ofWritten arguments and citations and documents filed defendantand in view ofentire acquisition notification of AECS and operation and all further proceedings pursuant to Notification which was issued on 5-9-1988 under Section 4(1) are stayed by HKHC Karnataka High Courtin WA No 17979/2011 Dated 11-04-2012 (Copy Enclosed with this RTI) ?.This information and reasons need to be provided to me as per Guide on RTIto Information Act 2005 published by the Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training (available here :http://rti.gov.in/RTICorner/Guideonrti.pdf) on page 12 and Para 9, following is stated: Providing Reasons for Decisions: The public authorities take various administrative and quasi-judicial decisions which affect the interests of certain persons. It is mandatory for the concerned public authority to provide reasons for such decisions to the affected persons. It may be done by using appropriate mode of communication .Attention is also invited towards the thread 'affected person ' under rti act.In fact, it can be said that "Affected" refers back to an action. The"Affected Persons" are the ones who are affected by that action. The reasons need to be given to affected person and copy of that can be given to me under 2 f of RTI Act. The BWSSBoffice is THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY under obligation to provide information "PUBLICLY” under section 4(1) (a) (b) (c) (d).