Site news

CASE IS PENDING CIVIL COURT IN OS 5424 /2016 AND OS 5426 /2016 “JEEVAN BIMA NAGAR POLICE” CANNOT “INTERFERE IN CIVIL MATTER”

 
 
Picture of System Administrator
CASE IS PENDING CIVIL COURT IN OS 5424 /2016 AND OS 5426 /2016 “JEEVAN BIMA NAGAR POLICE” CANNOT “INTERFERE IN CIVIL MATTER”
by System Administrator - Wednesday, 21 June 2017, 2:23 AM
 

By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru: I have asked PIO Jeevan Bima Nagar Police to provide me informationunder section 4(I) (a) (b) (c) (d) RTI Actaction taken report as per letter and compliant of Gopal owner in possession of site in S No 223/1 Kodihalli HAL 2ND STAGEBangalore . I have asked PIO to provide me reasons for interfering in civil matterwhen case is pending against Mr Gopal and others in OS 5424 /2016 and 5426/2016 plaintiffs has not brought any stay against Gopal and othersand allowing a stranger to tress pass the site under police support as sub-registrar office at shivaji nagar cannot register two documents on 4343/1994-95 0f book I dated22nd march as the Manjunath is suspected reportedly and allegedly brought a fabricated and createddocument registered at sub-registrar office at shivaji nagaronthe same date and same number 4343/1994-95 0f book I dated22nd march which is mentioned in the gift deed. In fact police need to book a case on Manjunath for brining fabricated and created document under section 464 and 468 after verification of documents from sub-registrar office instead of allowing him to tress pass the site belonging to Gopal and others .

In the similar way : Despite CM orders and UDD orders DS-I has illegally and fraudulently allotted alternative site to Sri G VSrinivas on 18-01-2016 as alternative scam broke out in BDA.In Legislative assembly this issue was raised and chief ministerhad issued orders to stop illegal alternative site allotments and after Dr H Shasidhar committee repoprt government has cancelled all alternative sites allotted and issued orders on 15-04-2016 and Sri G VSrinivas has no ownership based on sale deed and allotement letter issued on 18-01-2016 and police cannot support him.

BDA cannot Evict Gopal and others as they are in settled position since several decades without issuing notice under PP Act .The police is THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY under obligation to provide information "PUBLICLY” under section 4(I) (a) (b) (c) (d) RTI Act.BDA cannot issue any notice of Eviction or Legal action as Gopal and others as perfected its title by adverse possession as it is in settled position for 34 Guntas in S No 223/1 Kodihalli HAL 2ND STAGEBangalore with structure since decadesfor 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). BDA has no power to enforce the lapsed Acquisition notification in respect of S No 223/1 Kodihalli HAL 2ND STAGEBangalore consisting 34 Guntas. Wherefore BDA or its agents or its allottees has no power to disturb the peaceful possession and uninterrupted enjoyment of property of original owners or their legal heirs. As per Karnataka court orders citations the Acquisition notification in respect of S No 223/1 Kodihalli HAL2ND STAGEBangalore consisting 34 Guntas is considered to be lapsed and dead Acquisition notification is not enforceable. As per Section 19 of 1945 Act 'BOARD TO EXECUTE THE SCHEME WITHIN SEVEN YEARS - Where within a period of seven years from the date of the publication in the (Mysore Gazette) of the declaration under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 18, the Board fails to execute the scheme, substantially the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 27 shall become inoperative."The Preliminary Notification was dated 28.11.1959, Final Notification was dated 19.8.1964 and the Award according to the BDA was passed in LAC No 460 / 77 dated 04-09-78and a cheque was deposited in court on 06-03-1999 .But compensation was not paid till today to original owners or their legal heirs .The reason is, the Layout plan produced by the BDA along with Memo dated 17.9.2004 (filed in the Court on 20.9.2004) disclose that the same was approved vide BDA Resolution No. 184 dated 14.4.1976. When the lay-out plan itself was approved after long lapse of the period mentioned in Section 19 of 1945 Act, question of executing the scheme within the stipulated period does not arise at all. That apart, even according to the BDA, possession of the land in question was taken only on 28.12.1976, which is more than 12 years from the date of declaration made in the year 1964. Therefore, it has to be held that the scheme had lapsed under Section 19 of 1945 Act.The Preliminary Notification was dated 28.11.1959, Final Notification was dated 19.8.1964 and the Award according to the BDA was passed on 13.5.1969. However, possession of the land in question is claimed to have been taken on 28.12.1976. The B.D.A. Act came into force w.e.f. 20.12.1975 (received the assent of the Governor on 2.3.1976). Earlier to that, the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 (hereinafter called "1945 Act") was in force. The said Act governs the acquisition proceedings of the land in question. Section 19 of 1945 Act reads thus:" BOARD TO EXECUTE THE SCHEME WITHIN SEVEN YEARS - Where within a period of seven years from the date of the publication in the (Mysore Gazette) of the declaration under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 18, the Board fails to execute the scheme, substantially the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 27 shall become inoperative.".From the admitted facts and with reference to the above provision of the repealed Act, it should be held that the scheme was not executed within 7 years from the date of declaration. However, since the scheme is subsequently executed substantially, it has to be held that in so far as the land in question, the scheme had lapsed for non-execution of the same within 7 years as prescribed under Section 19 of the 1945 Act. The reason is, the lay -out plan produced by the BDA along with Memo dated 17.9.2004 (filed in the Court on 20.9.2004) disclose that the same was approved vide BDA Resolution No. 184 dated 14.4.1976. When the lay-out plan itself was approved after long lapse of the period mentioned in Section 19 of 1945 Act, question of executing the scheme within the stipulated period does not arise at all. That apart, even according to the BDA, possession of the land in question was taken only on 28.12.1976, which is more than 12 years from the date of declaration made in the year 1964. Therefore, it has to be held that the scheme had lapsed under Section 19 of 1945 Act.In the circumstances it has to be held that the BDA has abandoned its scheme in so far as the land in question for the reason that it has not formed sites upon the land in question as is evident from the Master Layout plan produced by the BDA.