By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru: Request is made to BDA commissioner to pay the compensation double the Today's market rate as per New LA Act as no compensation is paid after acquiring the land . BDA acquired S.No 50 of Dukanhalli Villlage but not made award and not paid any compensation in the name of Abbaiah and no notice issued under section 9 and 10 of L A Act Abbaiah and no compensation for land acquired under the 1894 act has been paid to the land owner Abbaiah or deposited with a competent court and retained in the treasury possession was not taken under the notification under Section 16(2) of LA Act. Out of 13 Acres 26 Guntas in S.No 50 of Dukanhalli Villlage Kasba Hobli HAL 2ndStage Bangalore Abbaiah was owning 3 Acres 16 Guntas as per revenue records and by DC Bangalore only Vide OM B.DIST.LND(K) SR -358/78-79 on Dated 20-09-1979 and I am the legal heir to the property . In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that if compensation for land acquired under the 1894 act has not been paid to the land owner or deposited with a competent court and retained in the treasury, then the acquisition would be deemed to have lapsed and would be covered under the 2013 law Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act')entitling the landowners to higher compensation.
IT is admitted fact by SLAO that 42 notified Khtedar/Anubhavadar were cultivating land since 100 years .It is also admitted fact that chairman BDA had issued orders that no Land Acquisition officers should acquire Thiglar community lands as they are greenery of Bangalore as they cultivate flowers in Bangalore .It is admitted fact that special land acquisition officer BDA had no power toreject award 42 persons after 15 year of Final notification of as on 24--06-1975 .It also admitted fact that BDA/CITB has reconveyd 1 acre 12 guntasvide resolution No 3826 dated 30-10-1974 .It is also admitted fact is land were in possession of owners/Kahtedars/Anubhadars of land . It is admitted fact that special land acquisition officer BDA did not passed award on 24-06-1976 in favour of 42 persons calming that since the S.No 50 of Dukanhalli Villlage Kasba Hobli HAL 2ndStage Bangalore is a Dharmarayaswamy inamthi and khatha of the land has not been registered to anubhadars ofthis land and question of tenancy of land does not arise in this case and rejected the award where as fact was different as it was already approved by Divisional commissioner to accord approval of redemption of 13 aces 26 guntas of Dharmarayaswamy inamthi granted to unauthorized occupants for agricultural purposes in the year 30-08-1975 by the Divisional commissioner wherefore it is considered that SLAO did commit blunder OF not preparing the award for lawful owners and this blunder is continued till today and In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that if compensation for land acquired under the 1894 act has not been paid to the land owner or deposited with a competent court and retained in the treasury, then the acquisition would be deemed to have lapsed and would be covered under the 2013 law entitling the landowners to higher compensation.
The BDA R&R AC is not bother about RTI Act .No RTI replies No first appeals .It has not published declarationunder section 4(1) (a) (b) (c) (d)on its website in respect of R&R . The KIC should take task action on BDA R&R for these blunders. BDA and State Government has to publish every year the work they carry out or the information they create under 4(1) (a) (b) (c) every day ,but it did not published all the work carried out by the BDA and government under section 4(1) (a) (b) (c) (d)of RTI Act 2005 and it has not provided citizens and opportunity to ask the reasons under section 4(1) (a) (b) (c) (d). This information and reasons need to be provided to everybody 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 KSOUoffice is THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY under obligation to provide information "PUBLICLY” under section 4(1) (a) (b) (c) (d). The state government and all its departments need to publish everything they do in year as per RTI Act 2005 and this need to be published every year and applicant asking information becomes easier to provide also to the applicant and Government becomes transparent .