By : M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru : BDA Assistant commissioner( R&R) should execute sale deed: in favour of Bangalore Mahanagar Palike S C Workers co-op society Ltd or let BDA commissioner and UDD Principal secretary Face contempt of court proceedings in honorable Kranatakahigh court order in WP No 29758/2011 DATED 13-10-2014for disobeying the order after compliance by petitioner by submitting the documents sought .Bangalore Mahanagar Palike S C Workers co-op society Ltd has complied the honorable Kranataka high court order in WP No 29758/2011 DATED 13-10-2014 and submitted all the copies of documents like RTC andSaguvali Chit extracts references and other documents which were submitted by 35 other site owners who's sites have been re-conveyed by BDA on the same basis in the same survey number S No 14 Gerehalli Village Uttrhalli hoblli Srinivas Nagar Bengaluru with same owner Ramaswamy . The BDA officershad suppressed these facts from honorable Kranatakahigh court order in WP No 29758/2011 . The Karnataka high court has issued an order directing the petitioner Bangalore Mahanagar Palike S C Workers co-op society Ltd to provide the records pertaining to ownership of the site and which become basis for re-conveyance the same has been provided as that of other 35 persons to whom the BDA did re-convey in the same survey numberfrom the same owner Sri H.V.Ramaswamy . Now the BDA cannot discriminate to Bangalore Mahanagar Palike S C Workers co-op society Ltd after compliance of court orders. It has to execute sale deed in favor of Bangalore Mahanagar Palike S C Workers co-op society Ltd .Even today SC and ST people facing discrimination even from Government authorities like BDA .Bangalore Mahanagar Palike S C Workers co-op society Ltd is facing unnecessary litigation for several years on silly reasons quoted by few BDA officers reportedly who are against schedule caste people. After submitting the documents request is made to Re-Convey and execute sale deed for 12495.5 sq feet site with structure in SurveyNo 14 Gerehalli Village Uttrhalli hoblli Srinivas Nagar Bengaluru belonging toBangalore Mahanagar Palike S C Workers Co-Operative Society Ltd which is in their possession since 1973 as BDA itself has "RE-ALLOTTED AND REGULARISED” "RE-CONVEYED” 35 sites in same S NO 14 Gerehalli except Bangalore Mahanagar Palike S C Workers Co-Operative Society Ltd as per "citation of high court orders inRe-view Petition 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 ) and .Bangalore Mahanagar Palike S C Workers co-op society Ltd owns 12 495.5 sq feet in S No 14 Gerehalli Village Uttarhalli Hoblli Srinivas Nagar Bengaluru through registered sale deeds from the owner Ramaswamy since 1973 and they are in possession since then . who are in settled possession asserting possession and ownership in themselves , openly, peacefully and uninterruptedly to the knowledge of BDA, for more than 30 years, in blatant violations ofseveral court orders and specially reported judgment inJohn B. James And Others vs Bangalore Development Authority ... on 7 August, 2000 which clearly held that "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 they haveperfected theirtitle to such property by adverse possession and consequently the title of BDA stood extinguished. It is needless to say that such adverse possession for 12 years should be subsequent to the date of vesting of land in BDA.”,.BDAAssistant commissionerneed to revoke notices issued to Bangalore Mahanagar Palike S C Workers co-op society Ltd before they are quashed by courts. BDAAssistant commissioner( R&R) should execute sale deed: in favour of Bangalore Mahanagar Palike S C Workers co-op society Ltd or BDA commissioner and UDD Principal secretary will Face contempt of court proceedings in honorable Kranatakahigh court order in WP No 29758/2011 DATED 13-10-2014.Saguvali Chit:The Saguvali Chit is also called the certificate of grant. This is issued on Form No VII in case of grant of government land to eligible persons for cultivation. This establishes the title of the person named in the Saguvali Chit to the land granted. A sketch of the land granted will be annexed to the Saguvali Chit. Landowner needs to have office orders, land granting file,original saguvali chit, office memorandum (official order confirming grant) Tahsildars office maintains darkhast register, in which every detail of land grant and beneficiary is recorded When documents submitted by landownermatch the records maintained by the government on that particular land, it becomes legal. Extract of court order in Equivalent citations: ILR 1990 KAR 727, 1990 (1) KarLJ 54 "Admittedly in all these cases the grant of lands took place on 11-2-1960 and, at that time which is relevant, in my opinion, for the purpose of determination of the question with which we are confronted, the Mysore Land Revenue Rules were in force and it would be necessary to examine the meaning and effect of the relevant provision of law. The relevant provision is to be found in Rule 43-A(3) of the Mysore Land Revenue Rules which reads as follows: "Every grant of land under Sub-rule (1) shall be subject to the conditions:- (i) where the grant is made free of cost, that the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of fifteen years from the date of the grant; or (ii) where the grant is made for an upset price, that the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of ten years from the date of the grant; I do not find any ambiguity in the wordings of this Rule. The plain meaning apparent from the Rule is that where the grant is free of cost, the land shall not be alienated for a period of fifteen years commencing from the date of the grant; but if it is a grant at an upset price, then it shall not be alienated for a period of ten years commencing from the date of the grant. The Rule is not obviously capable of the meaning that the date of commencement of the prohibition is on the date of taking possession of the land by the grantee. This is obviously so because the expression 'possession' or taking possession has not been employed in this Rule at all. The Rule has to be read in the form in which it exists and nothing extraneous could be imported into it nor anything taken away from the Rule. For the first time the word 'possession' is used in the Land Grant Rules only in 1969 Amendment Rules. I, therefore, cannot accept the contention that the prohibition commences with effect from the date of the possession or from the date of issue of the Saguvali Chit and not from the date of the grant of land.( http://indiankanoon.org/doc/445548/). At the risk of repetition, it has to be observed that what is relevant and germane to the issue is whether in all these cases alienation has taken place before the expiry of a period of ten years from the date of commencement of the grants. My opinion is that there is no violation of the condition imposed against alienation for a period of ten years. Computing the period from the date of the grant, it has to be held that in all these cases, alienation has taken place after the expiry of the period of ten years.