By : M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bangalore :As per the reported court orders second final notification is permissible under BDA Act . CM and BDA has done second final notifications to correct their mistakes and help the farmers as per several court orders and request of farmers. Ultimately it is pertinent to note that legal de-notification helps farmers and no political party should harm the interest of farmers. Framers curse is fallen on BDA as still several farmers have not got compensation and they are issuing fresh final notifications.."There was always a difference in the area notified in the preliminary notification and the final notification. This is the status all over the country. The objective of the preliminary notification is to indicate to the landowners and the general public that it is proposed to acquire lands. It is this notification that empowers the land acquisition officer with the authority to inspect the lands in question”. Such difference in the extent of the land for which preliminary notification was issued and finally acquired in nine layouts from 1978 to 2002 could be seen, if one goes by the BDA records. The difference between the two stages varied from 21 to 56 per cent. The stages in the land acquisition process, the legal experts opine that it was absolutely legal to drop acquisition proceedings or de-notify lands at any stage and scheme can be re-modified any time and second final notification can be legally issued..
BDA can propose acquisition of land Under Section17 of the B.D.A. Act by issuing preliminary notification and Government can issue under Section 19 of the B.D.A. Act final notification and BDA can any time send modified scheme under section 18(3) of BDA act and Government can again issue final notification underSection 19 of the B.D.A. Act or court orders and reissued final notification supersedes earlier final notification .Siddaraimaih the chief minister and Government did nothing illegal in re-issuing the final notification in respect of Arkavati Layout .Re-modification of scheme can be done and it can be done any number of time and any number of time final notification can be done as per Section 19 of the B.D.A Act 1976. It is pertinent to note that Government re-modified scheme of the Arakavathi layout under section 18 (3) of the BDA Act and final notification of the re-modified scheme under section 19 (1) of the BDA Act gazetted on June 18, 2014 second time in respect of Arakavathi Layout for 1766 acres (a little more or less) were needed for the public purpose of formation of Arkavathi Layout. This is final notification issued second time and this notification is valid and earlier first final notification in respect ofArakavathi Layout becomes invalid and the first final notification wasissued by the State Government, under section 19(1) of the Act (published in the Karnataka Gazette on 23.2.2004
Not first time in history of BDA : such second final notifications were issued by earlier government also headed by different parties and government and it is not the first time that Second Final notification was issued as per Section 19 of the B.D.A Act 1976 and it was not first time Siddaraimaih the chief minister and Government issued such second final notification. In respect of Banashankari Vth Stage, Jayaprakash Narayana Nagar 8th Stage, Jayaprakash Narayana Nagar 9th Stage and Gnana Bharathi Layout second final notifications were issued. The proposal submitted by the BDA were considered by the Government and sanction was accorded to all the schemes pursuant to which the modified schemes were approved under section 18 (3) of the BDA Act dated September 16, 1997, September 17, 1997 and October 6, 1997 came to be made in respect of Banashankari Vth stage layout, J.P. Nagar 8th stage layout, J.P. Nagar 9th Stage layout and Gnanbharathi layout respectively. Second final notifications were published in the Gazette dated September 17, 1997, September 18, 1997, September 18, 1997 and October 6, 1997 respectively. After issue of second final notification BDA published public notices as per the gazette in news papers. It is very simple once second final notification is issued earlier one get superseded. Government has all powers to modify the schemes and provide justice to farmers and now with the re-issue of final notification BDA should follow new land acquisition Act clauses relating to compensation, relief and rehabilitation as The Land Acquisition Act 1894 stands repealed and replaced with The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013”.BDA Land acquisition Department should treat all second final notification on par with each other and issue NOC based on it: Whichever land survey number does not appear in second final notification for such survey number BDA must and should give NOC without any delay whether it is Arakavathi Layout or Banashankari Vth stage layout, J.P. Nagar 8th stage layout, J.P. Nagar 9th Stage layout and Gnanbharathi layout respectively as It is very simple once second final notification is issued earlier one get superseded and stand cancelled without any reference to any court orders as they are not applicable to new final notifications which is not subject matter of any other court orders and they are applicable to only preliminary notification .
Who control Land acquisition department: Land acquisition DC and land acquisition officers are helpless before Sri Krishna Murthy 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. .. 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 . Kengeri police should restrict Sri Kishna Murthy AEE Housing project and stop construction if any carried out by Gowri construction. 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 . Land acquisition officer has to defend in the court but here he himself has taken the responsibility of land acquisition officer and defending the case illegally. The land owner has filed WP in high court of Karnataka. Let BDA wait for final outcome of the case and if BDA wins the case then finally it can do it its project any time. In a similar case by BDA housing department and same Gowri construction contractor continued the work and completed the work during the pendency of the case but the case went against the BDA. BDA is not learning any lessen even though in similar case in the high court of Karnataka at Bangalore in its order dated 14 th day of February 2014 bythe honourable MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDYin WRIT PETITION NOS. 12962-12970 of 2012 (LA-BDA) had allowed WP. It is also to be seen that the BDA has plunged ahead with the project and erected building even during the pendency of this petition - unconscious of its folly or may be even brash indifference as to the consequences if any. It is not in doubt that the petitions, however, would succeed in the light of the above infirmity and are accordingly allowed. The BDA was directed to put the petitioners in possession of lands of similar nature and extent as were the subject matter of acquisition. This case should open the eyes of BDA.