By : M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bangaluru : Mallikarjun L.Sis whistle blower and brought several irregularities in public domain committed by Sadashivanagar club and SRWA and need police protection and protection by Government of Karnataka. Sadashivanagar club stands on "CA site” meant for international library & BDA 'can't put "CA site” to other use'.WhereforeBDA should cancel allotment and renewal of lease and return back the lease amount deposited by DD which is not en-cashed by BDA and issue eviction notice to "Sadashivanagar club” as Sadashivanagar club stands on "CA site” meant for international library. As Supreme Court has in a case while dismissing appeals filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) questioning the 2011 order of the Karnataka High Court, which had set aside allotment of a CA site to BPCL in 2005 for opening a petrol station at CA Site No-2, HRBR Layout (Kalyan Nagar and ruled that BDA 'can't put CA site to other use'. Putting a break on the practice of diverting a civic amenity (CA) site earmarked for a particular use, the Supreme Court has ruled that the State government and the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) have no power to allot CA sites for use other than that earmarked in the master plan.
In the similar way BDA should cancel allotment and renewal of lease and return back the lease amount deposited by DD which is not en-cashed by BDA and issue eviction notice to "Sadashivanagar club” as Sadashivanagar club stands on "CA site” meant for international library & BDA 'can't put "CA site” to other use' and immediately take over the CA site with bulding and convert the same building as international library and give it CA site along with building Karnataka Library department Government of Karnataka for making it as international library .
Under Right to information Act Malikarjuna L.S. RTI and Social activist got the information from BDA and RTI Act and CAG reports filed applications for cancelling illegal CA site allotment to Sadashivanagar club . Victimizing RTI and social Activists is against the law. Mallikarjuna L.Sis whistle blower and brought several irregularities in public domain committed by Sadashivanagar club and SRWA and few big people are conspiring against him as Sadashivanagar club Sanctioned Building Plan was withdrawn and renewal of CA site for Sadashivanagar club is kept pending by UDD and BDA as the CA site on which it stands was originally meant for construction of an International Library .First Information Report (FIR) can be filed immediately upon receipt of complaints if the information disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence and if it does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence no FIR can be filed by Police. It is pertinent to note that eleven woman comes to Sadashivanagar police station with a complaint that Mallikarjuna L.S had come to public park where they were performing for a public event and he has taken photographs of their public event and asked the police to file an FIR .The police inspector has filed FIR against Mallikarjuna L.S under IPC Section 354(d) which is about stalking a woman and not about taking a photograph in a public function .Now police should explain how 354(d) is applicable for taking a photographs of public performance at public park and that to they were illegally performing without the approval of BBMP at that particular time and in the evening several hundred people visit the park and their public performance event itself was a crime under section 448 of IPC as complainant themselves had tress passed public park and this was photographed and given to Lokayukta as complaint against SRWA is pending before laokayuta.Few woman's had complained to Sadashivanagr Police Station that Mallikarjuna L.S RTI activists who had taken photograph of event at public place with the help of his friend to produce before lokayukta. And police filed FIR against him under 354(d) of IPC. As taking photos in India in a public place is not a crime under any section of IPC then why police officers at Sadashivanagr Police Station filed FIR 16/2015 under section 354 (d) and 506 against Maalikaujun L.S . The police itself are taking photographs of all citizens as it has put up several thousand CCTV Cameras all over Bangalore at many public places. All hotel owners and cybercafés and offices around Bangalore have put CCTV Cameras in all public places take your photographs. Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right of privacy is guaranteed constitutionally at private place and not in public spaces. Public spaces are not private or reserved property. Let everybody put CCTV camera in front of every house the crime will come down and terrorist activities will gradually stop all over as public will be constantly vigilant .As these cameras will act as deterrent .Wherefore taking photographs at public places is not crime and no FIR can be booked against Mallikarjuna L.S .FIR need to be quashed by police department or let the police file B-Report or Let Home department withdraw the false case by taking it to state cabinet. In a reported article quotes a lawyer who suggests this case is a slam dunk... as well as another who said there's no way the case gets anywhere, as there's nothing wrong with taking a photo of someone in a public place.
In terms of the BDA (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989, the allotment of CA sites shall be on a lease basis for a period not exceeding 30 years. If the lease is not renewed, or has been determined or terminated before the expiry of lease, the site allotted along with the buildings therein shall vest in the BDA and BDA shall have right to enter the premises and take possession thereof. It was seen that in 71 out of 1234 CA sites allotted by BDA, the lease had not been renewed as of July 2012. The list included 60 private institutions and 11 Government institutions. The delay in renewal of leases ranged from eight to nine years in respect of Government institutions while it was 11 months to 32 years in respect of private institutions. BDA had not initiated action against the allottees for not renewing the leases, thereby allowing them to occupy the BDA properties without legal validity. Non-renewal of the leases in time deprived BDA of the opportunity of mobilizing 43.45 crore by way of lease charges recoverable
Supreme Court has ruled that BDA 'can't put CA site to other use'. Putting a break on the practice of diverting a civic amenity (CA) site earmarked for a particular use, the Supreme Court has ruled that the State government and the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) have no power to allot CA sites for use other than that earmarked in the master plan. The court cited this rule as mentioned in Section 38A of the BDA Act, 1976, as part of its reasoning. A Bench comprising Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and Justice A.K. Sikri delivered the verdict on November 29 while dismissing appeals filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) questioning the 2011 order of the Karnataka High Court, which had set aside allotment of a CA site to BPCL in 2005 for opening a petrol station at CA Site No-2, HRBR Layout (Kalyan Nagar), 3rd Block. Several residents of the locality, led by Subramanya, had moved the High Court in 2006 questioning the allotment and seeking restoration of the area into a park, for which the area was earmarked in the comprehensive development plan (CDP) of 1984. "We do not find any merit in the submission that the term civic amenities would permit BDA to change the reservation from one particular user to another,” the Bench said while making it clear that "It is for the very civic amenity, for which the area is reserved, for which it has to be put to use.”.Reserved for park: The site in question was carved out from the area reserved for a park in the CDP of 1984. Later, the BDA utilised this area to form three CA sites, one of which was Site No-2, in CDP 1995. The BDA had informed under RTI Act that CA Site No-2 was earmarked for "bank”. The State and the BDA in 2005 had allotted it to BPCL for a period of 30 years on lease to open a "petrol bunk”, and the BPCL in turn had allotted the pump to an individual to operate the fuel station. The Bench also refused to accept the arguments that the BDA and the State were right in allotting the CA site to BPCL as both the "banks” and "petrol bunk” fall under the definition of "civic amenities” in the BDA Act with inclusion of "fuel stations” under this definition from 1990.May be a bank: With this verdict, the petrol outlet, functioning on the site since 2006, can't be allowed to operate. However, it can be used only for a bank as the residents gave up their plea for restoring the area into a park before the apex court, saying such a step may cause havoc as two ground-level water reservoirs has been constructed in the neighboring CA site. Residents are upbeat. "We want people to know that it is the right of residents of every locality to demand that CA sites are properly earmarked and utilized accordingly.”