Site news

THE AC BDA(R&R) KEPT PENDING MORE THAN 20000 RE-CONVEY FILES DESPITE UDD SOUGHT CERTAIN CLARIFICATIONS

 
 
Picture of System Administrator
THE AC BDA(R&R) KEPT PENDING MORE THAN 20000 RE-CONVEY FILES DESPITE UDD SOUGHT CERTAIN CLARIFICATIONS
by System Administrator - Sunday, 20 March 2016, 5:20 AM
 

By : M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bangalore : UDD sought many clarifications to amend the BDA Act .But Assistant commissioner(R&R) is deliberately did not provided clarifications to UDD .Many reminders were sent by UDD.Now government and BDA have realized their mistake and proposed a small amendment to validation Actto solve this problemand the amendment is instead of "between 20th December, 1973 to 8th May, 1986” the amendment will be in the place of word "20th December, 1973” the following word may be substituted "Since the formation of CITB in 1945”.Which will make the Validation ActSection 9 of the Amendment Act validates the allotment made between Since the formation of CITB in 1945 to 8th May, 1986. Section 38-C only authorises the BDA to allot a site in a development scheme to a person whose land had been acquired and this will solve more than 20,000 files will be cleared and houses regularized and BBMP can give them A khata and get taxes from them legally.

Several thousand files are pending in Re-Convey Department .Legitimate files are not cleared and sale deeds are willfully delayed. No transparency in Re-convey section. Even the copies of Public documents are not given under RTI Act by Assistant commissioner(R&R) .BDA re-convey and re-allotment Assistant commissioner is sleeping on the matter and has failed to provide information under RTI Act.. After the Amendment to Section 38 of the BDA Act the Government approved a proposal to upgrade the post of Tahsildar, Re-conveyance to that of Assistant Commissioner in order to expedite the residential works in this area. During the period, 614 Sale Deeds were issued in respect of re-conveyance areas and 207 fresh cases of re-conveyance were approved as per the information available to me through BDA website. Assistant commissioner(R&R) is not clearing the files for which CITB.BDA resolutions are available and they are enforceable as per law. which comes under Re-Convey area as per BDA resolutions and as perSection 5 of the Amendment Act introduced Section 38-C in the Act and Section 9 of the Amendment Act validated the allotments made between 20.12.1973 to 8.5.1986 retrospectively.But it is shocking to note that whopping more than 20917 files are still pending in R & R section of BDA and Assistant Commissioneris sleeping on the matter and he has not bothered even to reply my RTI Application dated 14-09-2012 in this regard.These pending sale deeds pertains to Rajajinagr 2nd and 3rd stage Hosahalli gramathana ,Banshankari 1st stage 2nd stage Sunkenhalli Layout and other areas. Several public representations have been received by BDA. Ministers MLAS MPS and Social workers have given representations for re-conveyance and re-allotments for those 20917 sale deeds.

To complete above task BDA has proposed to government an amendment to BDA Act by a letter dated 18-11-2009 as the CITB/BDA Resolutions were passed before 1973 and BDA Act provide Re-Conveyance after 1973 " In section 9 of BDA(Third amendment Act 1993 Karnataka Act 1994 may be amended as follows 'in place of words "after the 20th day of December 1973 the following word may be substituted "since the formation of CITB IN 1945”If at all BDA want to complete these tasks it need to immediately co-ordinate with Karnataka Government Secretariat urban development department and get the Act amended in the Belagum Session of Legislature which is shortly commencing on December 10 2012 .Or it can after taking legal opinion re-allot to all 20917 persons undersection 38 C (1)(a) of BDA Act 1976& BDARules and Regulations in respect Re-allotment /Re-conveyance sale deed execution as per format available at BDA websiteas per BDAresolution 189/94 dated 28-07-1994for theresolutions passed by CITB since the formation of CITB in 1945.In my view Re-allotments can bemade under section 38 C (1)(a) of BDA Act 1976in respect of Re-allotment as perBDAresolution 189/94 dated 28-07-1994for resolutions passed by CITB since the formation of CITB in 1945as legally there is no need to amend section 9 of Karnataka Act 17 of1994 inview of principal Actunder section38 C (1)(a) of BDA Act 1976permits re-allotments.

Some of the bulk allotments Re-Convey re-allotment and regularisation were made by the Authority in favour of the State and Central Government Organisations, House Building Co-operative Societies and several thousand individualshave been quashed by the High Court of Karnataka in various Writ Petitions because there is no provision in the Act for making bulk allotment and Re-conveyance . Therefore, it was considered necessary to amend the Bangalore Development Authority Act,- (i) to take power to make bulk allotment; (ii) to validate bulk allotment made earlier. Opportunities are also taken to make certain consequential amendments. The Act was amended and section 38-C and VALIDATION Act was introduced in BDA Act.Sevral thousand sites were validated and BDA was in process of issuing sale deeds and R&R department was created in BDA to carry out Re-Convey re-allotment and regularization.While BDA was in process another blow came from supreme court in Bangalore Development Authority ... vs R. Hanumaiah & Others on 3 October, 2005.It was held that "BDA can do Re-Convey re-allotment and regularization only forthe allotment made between 20th December, 1973 to 8th May, 1986 and not prior to that as Section 9 of the Amendment Act validates the allotment made between 20th December, 1973 to 8th May, 1986. Section 38-C only authorizes the BDA to allot a site in a development scheme to a person whose land had been acquired. "This apart Section 38-C is prospective in its application except to the extent of the allotment made between 20th December, 1973 to 8th May, 1986 which are saved by Section 9 of the Amendment Act. The resolution of CITB of 1972 agreeing to re-convey the part of the land acquired is not covered by the provisions of Section 9 of the Amendment Act. In the present case, the resolution of the CITB predecessor-in-interest is dated 19.4.1972 and it would not be deemed to be validated by the deemed fiction created by Section 9 of the Amendment Act to bring it within the provisions of Section 38 -C.”.This small mistake of government put 20,000 files pending while it cleared several thousand files with this amendment for the resolutions passed between 20th December, 1973 to 8th May, 1986 which were validated and approved by several court orders. But government intension was to solve problems of all the bulk allotments Re-Convey re-allotment and regularization were made by the Authority since CITB formation in 1945 in favour of the State and Central Government Organisations, House Building Co-operative Societies and several thousand individuals .

Now government and BDA have realized their mistake and proposed a small amendment to validation Actto solve this problemand the amendment is instead of "between 20th December, 1973 to 8th May, 1986” the amendment will be in the place of word "20th December, 1973” the following word may be substituted "Since the formation of CITB in 1945”.Which will make the Validation ActSection 9 of the Amendment Act validates the allotment made between Since the formation of CITB in 1945 to 8th May, 1986. Section 38-C only authorises the BDA to allot a site in a development scheme to a person whose land had been acquired and this will solve more than 20,000 files will be cleared and houses regularized and BBMP can give them A khata and get taxes from them legally.

The government is at liberty to Amend the BDAAct as suggested by experts to clear 20,000 Re-Convey files and to validate about 5000 "G” category allotment orders made since 1997Government can easily resolve the "G” category sites issue by amending BDA Act and Rules as order in WP 23475/2010 dated 25-08-2012 gave liberty to frame appropriate rules."G” category sites allotments were made to persons in public life to several thousand persons since 1997 recommended and made by the government since 1997 and BDA allotted sites to them and "G” category allotments made to several thousand individuals have been quashed by the High Court of Karnataka in various Writ Petitions stating that there is no provision in the Act for making "G” category allotments (though it is disputed). Therefore, it was considered necessary to amend the Bangalore Development Authority Act,- (i) to take power to make "G” category site allotments by Government ; (ii) to validate "G” category allotmentsmade earlier since 1997 by orders issued by Government and BDA to honor all allotments orders of Government made from 1997 . Opportunities can also be taken to make certain consequential amendments.When institutions other than the executive try their hand at policymaking and about discretionary powers of government, the consequences can be disastrous. The government is accountable to the people through legislature. Governments are not in the business of maximizing revenues. Instead of filling its own pocket, it is obliged, in a welfare state and particularly if government recognizes person in public life and reward them G Category sites it does its duty. You cannot have three executives running the government. This is not to say that courts should not strike down individual site allotments if they are made violating BDA Act and rules and Government Circulars as per THE KARNATAKA GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 , and Regulations/Rules made there under. Individual acts of criminal culpability must be dealt with. Criminal wrongdoing must not be condoned. This does not give reason for stating that government should not have power of allotment of G Category under discretionary quota altogether. But the manner in which G Category sites are allotted for a particular category must be decided upon by government. Not by the media trials. Not by courts. If government has no power than who has power? Actually it is ridiculous to state that government has no power to allot G category sites.