IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

W.P.NO. 40994 OF 2002 (LB-PIL)

BETWEEN:

Judicial Layout Residents and Site
Holders Association (Regd.)
By Board of Directors.                          : Petitioners

And:

Bangalore Development Authority
and Others                                               : Respondents.

REPORT SUBMITTED ON BEAHLF OF RESPONDENT No. 2

        1.    It is submitted that in obedience to the directions of this Hon’ble Court, this respondent got a survey of the lands conducted by the Revenue Department and also enquired in to this matter with the relevant authorities and perused the records produced. It is found certain inconsistency in the layout of the 4th respondent –society as narrated hereinafter:-

        2.    At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that the land for the purpose of formation of a layout of the members of the 4th respondent – society was acquired to an extent of 156 acres 26 guntas in various Sy. Nos. of Allalasandra, Jakkur, Chikkabommasandra Villages vide notification No. RD 156 AQB 84, date: 24-1-1989. copies of the 4(1) and 6(1) Notifications are herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURES R1 and R2 respectively. This acquired land was handed over to the 4th respondent – society by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, vide his O.M. Date: 13-11-1992 and 2-9-1994. copies of the said O.Ms. are produced and marked as ANNEXURES R3 and R4 respectively.

        3.    But, after the survey was conducted afresh, now it has revealed that the land in possession of the said society is to an extent of 190 acres 07 ¼ Guntas. This survey further reveals that the society is in occupation of 33 acres 21 guntas of land, which is in excess of the area actually acquired and handed over in favour of the society by the Government. Further probe in the matter has revealed that R.T.C. of this excess land stands in the name of 21 original land owners. There are no records in the Revenue Department to show now the lands have come in to the possession of the 4th respondent – society. It is also relevant to mention that provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act prohibits the societies to purchase and hold agricultural lands without obtaining permission, and as such, the society has to explain how they have one in to possession of this excess land, because, till this date, no such permissions have been taken. It is also relevant to mention that these excess lands continue to be agricultural lands in the records even to-day. Under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, agricultural lands cannot be utilized for any other purpose unless converted for that purpose. As per the available records, no such permission has been given under the Land Revenue Act. Hence, as per the available records, the possession and utilization of these 33 acres 21 guntas of land by the society for the residential purpose is unauthorized and illegal.

        4.    It is respectfully submitted that the Bangalore Development Authority, is the planning Authority for the area in which these lands are situated and as per section 17 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, it is only the planning Authority which is competent to approve the sub-division of lands. Therefore, approval of a layout can be done only by the planning Authority. The Bangalore Development Authority has categorically stated that no approval has been given by them for this layout of the 4th respondent society.

        5.        It is further submitted that the C.M.C. Yelahanka, which is a urban local body encompassing the said layout has also stated that they have not approved this layout plan and even otherwise, the C.M.C. is not competent under law to approve this layout plan. It has come to light that there is one plan which has been attached with a letter submitted by the secretary of the society to the C.M.C. Date: 18-5-2002. to which an un-registered relinquishment deed and a layout plan is enclosed, which is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURES R5 to R7. This layout plan contains an endorsement by the then chief officer of the Municipality to the effect that “plan is approved as per the council resolution No. 24, Date: 22-5-1996. It would be relevant to point out at this place itself that the layout plan is not signed by any office bearer of the 4th respondent –society and the relinquishment deed is also not signed by the C.M.C. and is not registered.

        6.    It is respectfully submitted that the resolution No. 24, Date: 22-5-1996, which is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE R8, referred to above in the said endorsement is only with regard to collection of development charges and opening of kathas and giving building permissions as per circular of the Directorate of Municipal Administration Date: 17-4-1990 which permits the local body to collect the development charges for the formation of the entire layout and it is not regarding approval of the layout. No documents regarding the approval of the layout plan are available in any of the records of the C.M.C., Yelahanka Under these circumstances, it is doubtful as to the purported endorsement of the then Chief Officer and it is suspected that this document could have been fabricated.

        7.    It is further submitted that as could be seen from the said resolution, the society had already developed the layout by forming roads, drains, underground drainage, electrification etc. Therefore, the question of approval of the layout in 1996 does not arise.

        8.    It is submitted that Annexure to the writ petition makes it amply clear that the 4th respondent society itself has Acknowledged in September, 2002 that legally the layout cannot be approved by the C.M.C. and it has to be got approved by the Bangalore Development Authority. Thus, even by September, 2002, the layout was an un-approved, un-authorised layout.

        9.    It is respectfully submitted that the society had again submitted an application for opining of kathas for 35 acres ¼ guntas, for which the then Town Municipal Council vide resolution No. 6 Date: 11-12-1996 resolved to open the kathas for the additional area by collecting development charges at Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. For the entire area and further resolved ant society should hand over all the public places.

        10.    It is further submitted that the society has submitted a relinquishment deed for C.A. sites and parks enclosing a layout map of 193 acres 2 ¼ guntas Date: 18-5-2002, which is unsigned and un-registered. Since the layout plan has not been sanctioned by the competent authority, the exact location of civic amenities sites, parks and playgrounds etc., are not known to the C.M.C., Yelahanka. The layout plan attached to the relinquishment deed not bear signature of any of the office bearers of the society. It is also relevant to note that the entire extent of land shown in the layout plan is not in the possession of the society, particularly the lands shown as C.A. sites.

        11.    It is respectfully submitted that on verification it is found that there is a letter issued by the commissioner, C.M.C., Yelahanka, on 23-1-2003 to the society stating that as reported by the Town planning Officer all the civic amenities sited, parks, playgrounds, drains, water supply have been banded over to the CMC and the society has been asked to pay the balance of the development charges. But, as seen from the note sheet of the file maintained by the CMC, the Town Planning Officer has recorded that he along with Mr. Murthurayappa, Revenue Inspector has inspected the lands and that the civic amenities sites, parks, roads etc. have been identified in the layout plan approved by the Chief Officer, Yelahanka, Date: 31-5-1996 are all available on site. This fact was placed for the perusal of the commissioner and the commissioner has not taken further action on this. But, a letter has been issued on 21-3-2003 as stated above. There is no mention in the records or on file how this letter came to be issued. The file was next seen by the next commissioner on 12-9-2003 who has again asked the Town Planning Officer to verify and locate park and open space. Copy of the note sheet is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE R9. There are no records to show that parks, C.A. sites and other civic amenities have been handed over actually to the C.M.C. since C.A. sites have not been handed over nor the actual location of these sites known to the CMC, the question of protecting the CA sites does not arise. It is respectfully submitted that legally the C.A. sites, parks and open spaces have to be handed over to B.D.A. and not to the C.M.C., Yelahanka. As stated above, it the 4th respondent society even till September, 2002 has not got the layout plan approved, the question of relinquishment of C.A. sites and parks does not arise.

        12.    It is respectfully submitted that on comparison of the layout plan submitted by the society along with their relinquishment deed and the survey map now prepared by the Revenue Department, which is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE R10 brings out a strange situation that the society has shown some of the C.A. sites, parks and open site on the private lands which are not owned by them, and are not in their possession. They have gone to the extent of showing some third party lands as park belonging to their layout, as could be seen from the two maps. As a matter of fact, a portion of Sy. No. 95/2 of Allalasandra village measuring 1.26 guntas which is shown as C.A. site in the layout plan has recently been converted for non-agricultural purpose in favour of original owner by the Deputy Commissioner by his order Date: 14-10-2003. Therefore, it goes to show that the society is not in possession of these lands and the original land owners are in possession of these lands.

        13.    It is respectfully submitted that as per the Zonal Regulations of the B.D.A. under the KTCP Act prevailing in the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, the maximum permissible sital area for residential purpose is 50%and area to be reserved for park and C.A. sites is 15 + 10% and the remaining for roads and other purposes. As seen from the layout map available in the records, the sital area works out to 64.73% as against permissible limit of 50% and parks and open space is only 5% against minimum of 25%. The details worked out and the measurement of the land use are herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE R11. The layout plan shows 2268 sites. Such a large number of sites could be shown only by using the land required to be reserved for park and civic amenities for residential purposes.

Bangalore                              
Dated    : 03-06-2005.

(M.KESHAVA REDDY)
HIGH COURT GOVT. ADVOCATE  
AND
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No. 2

 


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

WRIT  PETITION  NO. 40994   OF  2002 (LB-PIL )

 

BETWEEN:

Judicial Layout Residents and Site 
Holders Association (Regd..)  
By Board of Directors.                                                                                                                         Petitioners/S

And:

Bangalore Development Authority 
and Others                                                                                                                                           Respondents

 

A F F I D A V I T

VERIFYING THE REPORT

                   I, P. Ravi Kumar, aged about 43 years, Son of P. Gopala Reddy do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-

1.             I am working as Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Urban Development Department, Bangalore.

                I have read the Petition and Affidavit filed by the Petitioner and I have acquainted myself with the facts of the case from the records made available to me. I am authorized to swear to this Affidavit.

2.             The Statement made in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Report accompanying this Affidavit are based on the information and records made available to me and I  believe them to be true.

3.             I state the Exhibits 1 to 11 produced along with the report are true copies of the originals.

 

Bangalore. 
Dated    : 3rd June 2005.