By : M.S.Yatnatti Editor and Video Journalist Bangalore : Government can further amend the rule 5 in No UDD 475 MNJ 2014 ,Banagaluru Dated 20-05-2015by inserting " additional rule and making these rules retrospectively applicable making all Government orders making G category site allotments valid and enforceable since 1984. "Let UDD/BDA be clear” with or without present amendment the government has authority to allot the sites "under "G” category” Under The provisions of the THE KARNATAKA GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899. Note that Government took power to allot G-Category site twice , once in Corrigendum Circular No UDD 129 MNJ97 (P) Bangalore dated 26 -08-1997 and second in Gazette notification No UDD 475 MNJ 2014 ,Banagaluru Dated 20-05-2015 in rule 5. It is pertinent to note that circular NO UDD 129 MNJ DATED 06-08-1997 read with Corrigendum Circular No UDD 129 MNJ97 (P) Bangalore dated 26 -08-1997 is replaced and substituted by Gazette notification No UDD 475 MNJ 2014 ,Banagaluru Dated 20-05-2015 in rule 5which is almost same and similar with minor clarifications so it is retrospectively applicable. The state Government also draw power from The provisions of the THE KARNATAKA GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 , and Regulations/Rules made there under by virtue ofsection 21 of power exercisable in the like manner under any of such Acts, Regulations or Rules includes, subject to the like sanction and conditions, if any, power to add to, amend vary or rescind any Act or Rules or Regulations so made;. .Question of Government not having power to allot the sites "under "G” category” does not arise any time. Request for Allotment of G category site to Mr M.S.Rajshekhar Social worker and Congress leader as per Government order Number UDD 407 BLA 2005dated 27-01-2006 which is valid as per above cited amendment and substitution of rules & as per BDA Act 1976 and Rule 5 of BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 as per section (9) and complying with the guidelines issued by the government in that regard from time to time.
The government is further 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.
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 authorises 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 clared 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 regularisation 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.