Site news

THE BBMP ARO DID NOTHING TO RECTIFY KHATA AWANTARA “ONE PROPERTY” TWO KHATA TWO PID TWO OWNERS “ONE PLACE”

 
 
Picture of System Administrator
THE BBMP ARO DID NOTHING TO RECTIFY KHATA AWANTARA “ONE PROPERTY” TWO KHATA TWO PID TWO OWNERS “ONE PLACE”
by System Administrator - Monday, 9 January 2017, 5:15 AM
 

By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru: I have requested BBMP ARO Uttarhalli Sub-Division to provide me information the reasons under section 4(I) (d) RTI Act as under what provision of law ARO Uttrhalli Sub-Division BBMP providedTwo Khatha and Two PID to one property at one place as it has provided Khata to site number 91 Survey number as 7.3 New PID number: 184-w0292-36-1 and Khata to site number 43Survey number 7.2 of uattarhalli villagePID Number 901 525 7.2 43 . Whereaas site number 43Survey number 7.2 of uattarhalli villageis based on a fake plan and BBMP has given fake khata to site number 43. . Mr Gopialleged owner of site number 43 created fabricated forged concocted the Layout plan allegedly showing to own site (30x40) No 43 in S.No 7.2 Uattarhalli Village registered in 2006. The DC Conversion was allegedly made for 1 acre and 25 guntas in S.No 7.2 Uattarhalli Village and the Layout Plan used by Gopi is showing 57 sites in it and few are even not numbered. In 1 acre 25 guntas 57 sites of 30x40 Dimensionis next to impossible .In one acre about maximum 18 site can be made .And 57 sites are next to impossible and site number 43 cannot exists .Let Mr gopi and his associates show 57 sites on ground and 57 registered documents.Wherefore it is conclusive proof that Gopi is showing 57 sites layout plan is actually a fabricated and forged document.The BBMP is THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY under obligation to provide information "PUBLICLY” under section 4(I) (a) (b) (c) (d) RTI Act.

Complaint is filedagainst Mr Gopi s/o Nagappa Sy Number 37/1 K R.Hospital Road Uttarahalli Bengaluru-560061 and his associates and his henchman and agents created fabricated forged concocted the Layout plan allegedly showing to own site (30x40) No 43 in S.No 7.2 Uattarhalli Village registered in 2006 and who made criminal tress pass on the strength of forged document in site number 91 (30x40) in S No 7.3 Uttarhalli Village which belongs to Smt Lakshami Yammal w/o G Pandurangan as per sale deed registered in 1990 . The DC Conversion was allegedly made for 1 acre and 25 guntas in S.No 7.2 Uattarhalli Village and the Layout Plan used by Gopi is showing 57 sites in it and few are even not numbered. In 1 acre 25 guntas 57 sites of 30x40 demission is next to impossible .In one acre about maximum 18 site can be made .And 57 sites are next to impossible and site number 43 cannot exists .Let Mr gopi and his associates show 57 sites on ground and 57 registered documents.Wherefore it is conclusive proof that Gopi is showing 57 sites layout plan is actually a fabricated and forged document .Police can investigate the matter and file charge sheet on him .Police is requestedstop the tress pass and file an FIR against Mr Gopi s/o Nagappa and his henchman and associates and agents under section 448468 420 506 and Read with section 120 B and 34 and other relevant sections of IPC for tress pass criminal intimidation and forging and fabricating document . The complainant shall fight both criminal and civil case until heget justice and equity. he will fight the civil case in Civil court and high court but for fabrication and forging the layout plan in S.No 7.2 Uattarhalli Village policeneed to file FIR immediately as he is acting on the basis of fabricate layout plan of S.No 7.2 Uattarhalli Villageand he is defrauding even the civil courts..Humble Request is made to Bangalore Police to act on complaint of G Pandurangan senior citizen to stop the tress pass and file an FIR against Mr Gopi s/o Nagappa and his henchman and agents under section 448468 420 504 506 and Read with other relevant sections of IPC for tress pass criminal intimidation and fabricating documents . Policeneed to protect G Pandurangan senior citizen under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act No. 56 of 2007) Cognizance of offences: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974) every offence under this Act shall be cognizable and boilable. The G Pandurangans wife and senior citizen purchased the property site number 91 measuring 30x40 feet in 1990 under registered sale deed and paying corporation taxes and is in possession since than for more than 16 years and onwards and he/she has established his possession clearly and as Mr Gopi s/o Nagappa allegedly purchased the fake property in 2006 and he claims the possession property is absolutely and logically false and fake and he is rank tress passer. Oral and documentary evidence available on record has come to a clear and categorical conclusion that the Mr Gopi s/o Nagappa has no right in theproperty and resultantly, He should search his property in Survey No.7/2 and not in No.7/3 of Uttarhalli Village as he has fake layout plan..

Property Identification Number (PID):A PID is a property identification number and contains important information on properties, ward number, street name and number, plot number and details and more. The PID number is applicable to all properties that are in the purview of the BBMP, whether or not they are assessed for property tax. A property owner can apply for a PID by submitting the Khata document, the address proof and survey number of the property. BBMP to announce that BBMP has developed a GIS based Property Tax System covering whole BBMP jurisdictional area, as part of this System BBMP has provided a unique Property Identification Number (PID) to each & every Property in Bangalore. The PID Number is a combination of Ward number- Street Number-Plot number. A unique street number has been assigned to each and every Street and within the street a property number has been assigned. The G Pandurangans wife and senior citizen has Survey number as 7.3 New PID number: 184-w0292-36-1 andMr Gopi s/o Nagappasite does not exists.This officially proves the G Pandurangans wife and senior citizenhas established his possession clearly and this is clinching evidence .Mr Gopi s/o Nagappa claims that his site is converted by DC and one of the conditions in alleged conversion order is it should be approved by BDA. BDA has not approved the Layout Plan allegedly had by Mr Gopi s/o Nagappa.Without approval of BDA the site does not exists and their alleged layout plan submitted is not approved by BDA .It is submitted that it is fake plan .Policecannot believe such plan. The DC Conversion was allegedly made for 1 acre and 25 guntas and the Layout Plan used by Gopi is showing 57 sites in it and few are even not numbered. In 1 acre 25 guntas 57 sites of 30x40 demission is next to impossible .In one acre about maximum 18 site can be made .57 sites are next to impossible and site number 43 cannot exists .Wherefore it is conclusive proof that Gopi is showing 57 sites layout plan is actually a fabricated document .Police can investigate the matter and file charge sheet on him.Gopi made criminal tress pass in site number 91 in S No 7.3 Uttarhalli Village which belongs to Smt Lakshami Yammal w/o G Pandurangan as per sale deed registered in 1990 . The G Pandurangans wife and senior citizen sale deed has this schedule for site number 91.Eastby site number 92 west by site number 90Northby site number 95 and 96South by Roadin Survaey number 7.3 of uattarhalli village.New PID number: 184-w0292-36-1.The Mr Gopi s/o Nagappasale deed has this schedule for site number 43 .Eastby site number 44 west by site number 42Northby site number 35 and 36South by Roadin Survey number 7.2 of uattarhalli village.PID Number 901 525 7.2 43 .

As sale deed boundaries will prevail and both cannot absolute owners of the properties at same place as per the registered sale deeds with different sale deeds and different vendors and purchased at different times one by plaintiff is in 199030x40 feet site and defendantis in 200630x40 feet siteon a fake layout plan and as a matter of fact in Survey No.7/2 and No.7/3 of Uttarhalli Village, Bangalore south Taluk are both different places and the defendant on the basis of fake layout plan who is purchaser at a later date on 2006 could not finding his site at original place as per his schedule boundaries trespasses into aplaintiff property who is in possession since 1990 .Wherefore defendant is a tress passer in site number 91 . Two different sale deeds and two different schedules cannot be at one place and defendantis surly a tress passer. The plaintiff has purchased under registered sale deed in 1990 and is in possession of the property under his schedule and sale deed boundaries will prevail and defendant who purchased the property in 2006 cannot claim any possession on the property held by plaintiff after 16 years of his possession since 1990 .The word 'SALE DEED' otherwise called as 'Conveyance Deed' is a legal written document executed by the vendor and the purchaser which evidences the sale and transfer of ownership of the tangible immovable property. A sale deed is governed by 'The Registration Act, 1908' and is an important document for both the buyer or the transferee and the seller or the transferor. A sale deed is executed after the execution of the agreement to sell, and after compliance of various terms and conditions between the seller and the purchaser mutually. A sale deed is the main document which gives details of how the seller got the property, at what consideration the seller is selling the property and assurance to the purchaser that the property is free from any encumbrances, liabilities or indemnity clauses. A sale deed acts as a essential document for the further sale of the property by the purchaser as it establishes the proof of ownership of property.A sale deed is one of the most valuable legal documents in a purchase or sale of a property.