By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru: The land designated for open spaces including for buffer zones is not acquired as per CDP 2015 page 39 has lapsed as BDA did not acquired the land and BBMP has no right to demolish the structure on buffer zone of storm water drains.BDA has reserved land for Park and Open space land use as per RMP-2015 many of them were earlier in residential zone in RMP-2005.Open spaces include buffer zones for storm water drains as per CDP 2015. People's argument is valid. Their anger is fuelled by knowledge that clearances are given based on CDPs and RMPs. Even the Karnataka high court had in 2012 ruled the RMP must be the final document for granting of clearances.Page 39 of the RMP reads: "...In case the buffer has not been marked due to cartographical error for any of the above types of drains, then based on the revenue records, buffer shall be insisted in all such cases without referring the land use plan while according approval for building development layout plan." BBMPargues that not just the buffer zone -buildings in which BBMP has not included in its drive -the rules are the same for drains. " All approvals have to be given based on the revenue map,"says BBMP .Even if we agree that BBMP is right its action is time barred .After 12 years even a tress passer perfects it title by adverse possession. The why not a person who has legally got the land by BDA and DC converted land.Let BBMP make storm water drainbut let it acquire the land as BBMP is presently as per law not the owner as per Limitation Act. BBMP should read this also in the same page 39 "Any land falling within the valley for which permission has been accorded either by the Authority or Government, and then such permission shall be valid irrespective of the land use classification in the RMP 2015. Fresh permissions for developments shall not be accorded in valley zone. This means earlier approvals and sanction already given stands valid and BBMP has no right to demolish them in the name of old revenue maps.
In view ofBDA not acquiring the landwithin five years of notifying the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP), as per the circular issued under the provisions of Section 69(2) of the KTCP Act and as per several court order citations allowing conversions for the lands not acquiring the land by the BDA, within five years of notifying the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) AS PERcourt orders citations. The government circular directing all the Urban Development Authorities (UDAs) to give back private lands earmarked as park and open space to the original owners if they fail to acquire them within five years. Land earmarked as park and open space has to be acquired by the UDAs, including the BDA, within five years of notifying the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP), as per the circular issued under the provisions of Section 69(2) of the KTCP Act.If not, the original owners of such lands can take their property back from the UDAs, and the UDAs will have to hand over such lands by changing the zoning regulation (other than park and open space). The UDAs can also give permission for any kind of land use (like residential or commercial or industrial), depending on the kind of development in the surrounding areas, as per the circular.BDA need to process , the original land owners' applications seeking land use conversionType of land use conversion will depend on kind of development in the surrounding areas. If there is commercial development in the surrounding areas, permission can be given for commercial use for such lands, As the UDAs were unable to acquire those lands, number of original land owners have dragged the Authorities to court. Type of land use conversion will depend on kind of development in the surrounding areas. If there is commercial development in the surrounding areas, permission can be given for commercial use for such lands .It was held by Karnataka high court that "petitioners have produced proof of such ownership. It is claimed that lands adjacent to such lands are being used for residential purposes. The revised comprehensive development plan under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the K.T.C.P. Act', for brevity) was said to have been published on 12.11.2003 and in terms of Section 69(2) of the K.T.C.P. Act, the designated land was to be utilised for the purpose for which it was earmarked, within five years from the date of publication of the Master Plan and that if the authority failed to comply with the mandatory requirement, the designation would deemed to have been lapsed entitling the land owner to utilise the land and enjoy the same. The respondents, admittedly, had not takenany steps to acquire the land, and therefore, it is the case of the petitioners that the designation is deemed to have lapsed by operation of law and hence the petitioners had applied for change of land use and to utilise the land for the residential purpose and had submitted the necessary documents such as survey report and the P.T. sheet to the competent authority.The same having been rejected, thepetitioners are before this Court. Since the law is well settled that if once the land is designated under the Comprehensive Development Plan or the Master Plan in terms of the K.T.C.P. Act and if the same is not acquired, the designation would lapse after a period of five years. In the instant case the designation has lapsed as early as in the year 2008. However, the authority not having acquired the same nor having redesignated land for any particular purpose under any fresh Master Plan or under the provisions of the K.T.C.P. Act, the land would be available for the petitioners to utilise the same in accordance with law. Therefore, even seeking permission from the authority did not arise in any event such permission having been sought and the same having been rejected is not supported by any legal provision. Therefore, the petition is allowed summarily. The endorsement impugned is quashed. The land is availableto the petitioners to be utilised in the manner known to law.In terms of Section 69(2) of the K.T.C.P. Act, the designated land was to be utilised for the purpose for which it was earmarked, within five years from the date ofpublication of the Master Plan and that if the authority failed tocomply with the mandatory requirement, the designation woulddeemed to have been lapsed entitling the land owner to utilise theland and enjoy the same. The respondents, admittedly, had not taken any steps to acquire the land, and therefore, it is the case of thepetitioners that the designation is deemed to have lapsed by operationof law.