Site news

THE BDA UDD TREAT THE FREEDOM FIGHTERS AS BEGGARS WHO QUEUE UP FOR CRUMBS DOLED OUT BY THE STATE

 
 
Picture of System Administrator
THE BDA UDD TREAT THE FREEDOM FIGHTERS AS BEGGARS WHO QUEUE UP FOR CRUMBS DOLED OUT BY THE STATE
by System Administrator - Sunday, 24 July 2016, 3:16 PM
 

By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru: THE "BDA is not allotting "E” category sites to eligible freedom fighters. Several freedom fighters have applied for BDA sites. "The object of the freedom fighters' BDA site is not to reward or compensate the sacrifices made in the freedom struggle. The object is to honour and mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country in the hour of its need,”. Freedom Fighters BDA sites allotments- Both the stateGovernment and the the BDA treat the freedom fighters as beggars who queue up for crumbs doled out by the State. That is because they do not have any patriotism and self respect in themselves. This kind of attitude of the BDA officers dealing with such applications is highly condemnable. A 90 year old freedom fighter Sri B.M . Aeko Ramswamy who stays with his son at Bangalore for last 15 years has visited more than 50 times to Sham Bhatthe the then BDA commissioner with request to allot a site under "E " category . Mr Sham Bhatthe then BDA commissioner does not gave value to freedom fighters . BDA commissioner should understand the value of freedom of India and immediately allot the sites to eligible freedom fighters as it was allotted in the past without further delay. I request Chief Minister to call Mr Sham Bhatthe BDA commissioner to his office with file and issue orders with immediate effectto allot sites to last batch of applicants as per law .THE "BDA is not allotting "E” category sites to eligible freedom fighters. BDA does allotment in other ABCDF categories swiftly but not to "E” category sites .In 2007 Twenty-eight freedom fighters, all in their 80s and 90s, were allotted "E " category sites by thenGovernor Rameshwar Thakur, a freedom fighter himself, presented site allotment letters of the Bangalore Development Authority to them at a function organized in 2007 . Each of the freedom fighters was allotted a site measuring 30x40 ft in BTM Layout 6th Stage. This was the second time that the BDA was allotting sites to freedom fighters. Nineteen sites were allotted at Happy Valley Layout in Banashankari 5th stage by the former Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy. Another one last batch of applicants of freedom fighters are pending since 2007 and 2008 who have applied under freedom fighter quota .But BDA is not respecting freedom fighters and just postponing the allotment.When BDA has power to allot sites in A B C D E F Categories and even today it is allotting then why Government has no power to allot "G " category is when it has power to do so under same circular under which BDA has power.BDA failed to defend the government before Karnataka court. , But this controversy was created by BDA officers with and Government advocates with political and vested interests in respect of G category and with intention oftroubling the state Government of which it is subordinate .

With or without amendment state government has power to allot G category sites as per BDA rules and "BDA (allotment of sites) rules 2015” amends "BDA (allotment of sites) rules 1984” "by substitution” validating G-category sites since 1984 as both amendment and the circular NO UDD 129 MNJ DATED 06-08-1997 read with corrigendum circular NO UDD 129 MNJ 97 (P) BANGALORE DATED 26 -08-1997 both are similar and amendment is a simple clarification as state government had power to allot G-category sites with or without amendment asCircular No UDD 129 MNJ dated 06-08-1997 Read with corrigendum Circular No UDD 129 MNJ 97 (P) Bangalore dated 26 -08-1997 issued under old rule 5 is almost similar to that of present amendment to Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of site)(Amendment) rules 2015 which in turn amends BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 by "substitution” of new rule 5. The then Additional Advocate General KM Natraj has personally committed blunder in Karnataka High court in order inWP 23475/2010Dated 25-08-2012that WP 11102/2008Dated 15-12-2010 stating the orders are correct instead of challenging them in Writ Appeal he personally stated that Government has no power to allot G category site while suppressing the fact of 1-4 citations andCorrigendum Circular No UDD 129 MNJ97 (P) Bangalore dated 26 -08-1997 according to which Government had had power to allot G category site since 26 -08-1997 .It was embracement to state government that then Additional Advocate General KM Natraj was stating wrongly thatGovernment has no power to allot G category site whereas the then Advocate General stated in a report to Government on 27-06-2012that G category allotment was done as per rules in respect of then law minister Suresh Kumar. The then Additional Advocate General KM Natraj failed to communicate this report to HKHC in WP 23475/2010 Dated 25-08-2012that WP 11102/2008Dated 15-12-2010 as these court orders were based on circular NO UDD 129 MNJ DATED 06-08-1997 and not based on corrigendum circular NO UDD 129 MNJ 97 (P) BANGALORE DATED 26 -08-1997 in which government had power to allot the G category sites. .BDA has authority to allot ABCDEF category and suppressed the Fact of BDA has allotted more than two Lakhs sites in 62 Layouts to General Public since inception of BDA and less than two thousands sites allotments under discretionary quota in ABCDEFG category which should not rise any bodies eye-brows, Which amounts to less than 1% of general allotments. Whereas Advocate General stated on 27-06-2012 report that G category allotment was done as per rules in respect of Suresh Kumar and this report was not communicated to HKHC by then Additional Advocate General KM Natraj .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.