By : M.S.Yatnatti Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru : Reportedly if you own a structure that violates building norms and think you can get away by not applying under Akrama-Sakrama, think again. Foreseeing poor response to the proposed regularization scheme, the state government will make it mandatory to regularize illegal constructions and unauthorized structures in urban areas. Those who fail to apply and regularize their illegal structures by paying the stipulated penalty will face dis connection of water and electricity services and, finally, demolition. the civic body will undertake a survey of all buildings, irrespective of whether they apply for the regularization scheme or not, before initia ting action. As per the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Regulation of Unauthorized Development or Construction) Rules, action can be taken under Section 76FF of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. This section empowers urban local bodies, among others, to demolish such structures. The government will incorporate the mandatory clause in the rules to be notified, to ensure no one gets away scot-free and the civic body earns a target revenue of Rs 5,000 crore. Three categories of unauthorized constructions will attract action -unauthorized buildings for which no application for regularization is received within the time limit, unauthorized buildings which are not eligible to be regularized under the scheme as violations are beyond the fixed limit, and unauthorized buildings for which the regularization fee has not been paid within the stipulated time limit. Justifying the need for such a clause, a senior official at the state urban development department said the Akrama-Sakrama scheme will pave the way for the regularization of over 10 lakh unauthorized buildings raised in violation of construction norms in Bengaluru alone,The State Government has rightly decided to regularize and re-convey as per law3,699 acres of encroachment of Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) land but did nothing till today and now it can adopt state government scheme of refurbished Akrama-Sakrama scheme and regularize everything and every sitein it jurisdiction as BDA is nothing but state Government BDA land is Government land and Government land can be regularized..In view of The Karnataka High Court dismissedWP 8895/2015 W.P.No.8895/2015 c/w W.P.Nos.10349-10351/2015,14141-14142/2015, 15183/2015 & 24579/2015on 13-12-2016 a batch of petitions challenging the refurbished Akrama-Sakrama scheme, paving the way for consideration of applications pending for the past 30 months the government should include to regularize and re-convey as per law3,699 acres of encroachment of Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) land as BDA land is nothing but Government land and Government land can be regularized under akrama akarama.regularization is nothing but Re-conveyance as per citations and The findings recorded in the said judgments in K N KAMALAMMA versus BDA Reported in 2009(1) Kar .L.J.658(DB) in Division Bench Karnataka High Court on 17th July 2008 (Para 14 )are binding on the Government and BDA and No doubt, it is true that the word 'reconveyance' has not been used in Resolution No. 629 and instead the words used are 'regularisation' and 'reallotment' of site. But it is implicit in the resolution of the BDA that what is really meant by regularisation and reallotment of the site was only reconveyance of the site.Under refurbished Akrama-Sakrama scheme Government land can be regularized and BDA is Government and BDA land is Government land and Government land can be regularized.
The State Government has rightly decided to regularize 3,699 acres of encroachment of Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) land, which may house an estimated 66,500 sites plus about 20 000 pending files in all about one lakhs sites . For this state government need to amend BDA Act and Rules.This land spread across 68 BDA layouts, has been notified and acquired by BDA during the formation of these respective layouts. However, private individuals though do not have titles over the property have had possession of these lands and has seen development. These private individuals have been enjoying these properties in many cases for more than two decades now. Not just that, most of these cases are currently pending before the courts as the private property owners have either challenged the acquisition or have sought a title deed. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah said that as most of these lands are developed into residential areas, it was not possible for the Government to evict all these residents. "There are only two options here. Either we evict them or regularise them. It is a question of more than 60,000 households. We have decided to regularise these possessions with a fee that is presently being worked out. This will ensure revenue of a few thousand crores to BDA and also solve the issue for the people,” he said adding that the Government had sought legal opinion on the process to be followed for the same. It is good decision as State Government need to amend the BDA Act and rules. 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” to 30th December, 2015 .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. BDA secretary eviction order is set aside in M.C.A NO. 33 / 2014 in respect ofBanashankari I Stage recently "instead let BDA reconvey sites”. BDA do not learn lessons despite this situation .The State Government has rightly decided to regularize 3,699 acres of encroachment of Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) land, which may house an estimated 66,500 sites plus about 20 000 pending files in all about one lakhs sites .In this scenario the The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) issuing notices on 152 constructions is illegal capricious and unwarranted , mostly residential houses, in Banashankari III Stage, claiming that these have been built illegally on 5.3 acres of its property. After 4 decades BDA cannot issue notices of eviction. The notices are dated November 16, 2015 and when some of the residents protested, authorities took the help of police and photographed and videotaped the serving of notices. Reportedly The 'illegal layout' is the area behind the Kamakya Theatre off the RingRoad.What has irked the residents is that many of their homes here are decades old. The BDA notice says the constructions are illegally done on survey numbers 77/1 and 77/2 in Kathriguppe village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk. It states that these lands were acquired by the BDA through the notification of September 10, 1979, and a final notification on April 30, 1981. "These are properties of the BDA. It is noticed that you have put up illegal/unauthorised constructions and are residing there. You are informed to provide any documents about the property if you have any within seven days, else action as per BDA rules will be initiated against you," the notice read. This notice is issued in violation of as per citation of high court orders in Division Bench order Reported inJohn B. James And Others vs Bangalore Development Authority ... on 7 August, 2000 Equivalent citations: ILR 2000 KAR 4134, 2001 (1) KarLJ 364). BDA cannot issue any notice of Eviction or Legal action as these residents haveperfected theirtitle by adverse possession as they are insettled position for of their sites with structure since 1973 for more than 12 years consequently the title of BDA stood extinguished (If anyone, who has trespassed into BDA land or in unauthorized possession of BDA land, has put up a structure and completes and accomplishes the act of possession and continues in such settled possession asserting possession and ownership in himself, openly, peacefully and uninterruptedly to the knowledge of BDA, for more than 12 years, then it is possible for him to contend that he has perfected his title to such property by adverse possession and consequently the title of BDA stood extinguished as per Division Bench order Reported inJohn B. James And Others vs Bangalore Development Authority ... on 7 August, 2000 Equivalent citations: ILR 2000 KAR 4134, 2001 (1) KarLJ 364).