Firoz.T.Totanawala
The Bangalore Metro Reporter
15th February 2012 issue-
BBMP BLUNDERS!
DENIES KHATHA TO OWNERS, MALA FIDE INTENTIONS SUSPECTED?
What one has to do if BBMP refuses or drags registering a khatha for a property? Either bribe the officials or approach the courts. What if both fail to do the needful? The High Court had given a direction to effect the khatha to a big vacant land in Sy.No.61 of Akkithimmanahalli, in accordance with law within two months! The Legal officer opined that khatha can be registered with some riders. But the BBMP officials are inventing one or the other excuses to deny the khatha. Despite having valid documents to prove the ownership, the BBMP is out to deny the khatha claiming that the property in question belongs to BBMP. And the battle continues....
Hats off to the BBMP officials who can invent unimaginable objections and queries to prevent a land owner in Akkithimmanahalli to get the khatha registered in BBMP. What was essentially a private property, the BBMP is claiming ownership over the same, just because the Executive Officer had made a temporary entry as 'BBMP' in 1975, because during his local enquiry then, nobody came forward to claim the ownership!
SAU SAAL PEHLE!
The story starts in 1907, when one Krishnamurhty Setlur purchased 10 acres and 20 guntas of land in Akkithimmanahalli from its previous owner Keshava Iyengar. The lands were situated in Sy.No.64 of Akkithimmanahalli, later renumbered as Sy.No.61. Between the years 1965-79, the Survey department took up the survey in Bangalore and the lands were given CTS numbers. Later, the owners sold a major portion of the lands by forming sites. As per the BBMP records, the land was converted into non agricultural before forming the layout. Finally, the owners/successors have retained a big plot of land measuring 19, 900 sq. ft. It is this plot that is creating history in BBMP. The BBMP is claiming that it owns the lands and bases its claim on an entry made in 1975 showing it as BBMP property.
It is this entry that is central to the issue. It so happened in
1975 that the City Survey Enquiry officer went for spot inspection of the area
and nobody claimed the ownership of the property. But he was appraised that the
land belongs to a private person. The EO had reported that there is a vacant
land consisting of an open drain in between the Protestant cemetery and private
properties. As the private party is not known, the property is kept in the name
of Corporation of Bangalore. The open drain happens to be Raja Kaluve.
YE MERI JAAGEER HAI!
It is on this ‘entry’ the BBMP is claiming the property as its
own. In fact, in 1979, the EO of the city Survey No. 3, had held that the land
belongs to City Corporation. By then, the owners who
learnt the matter rushed to claim their property. They filed a revision
petition against the orders of the city Survey EO in 1995 with the Joint
Director of Land Records. The JDLR remanded the matter back to the EO detecting
him to conduct fresh enquiry. The EO conducted the fresh enquiry and in 2000,
held that the property belongs to the owners (Settur and family) and not the
BCC.
THE TRANSPARENT EO ORDERS!
The EO divided the property into five parts and assigned CTS No.
1909/ 1 to 5. Out of this, the EO held that CTS Nos.1909/1 and 1909/3 belongs
to City Corporation, 1909/4 and 1909/5 belongs to the owners - Setlur family
and CTS No.1909/2 being the Raja Kaluve. The BBMP was not prepared to accept
the orders of the EO and preferred an appeal to the JDLR who dismissed the
appeal and upheld the orders of the EO. The BBMP then made an appeal in the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the KAT also dismissed the appeal and hence,
as far as the lands in CTS 1909/4 and 1909/5 are concerned, the Survey
department has ruled in favour of Settur and family. The KAT Order was in 2004.
DRAGGING IS AN ART!
The story takes a different turn from here. The BBMP should have
filed an appeal in the High Court against the Orders of the KAT, but it chose
to remain silent. Once the KAT dismissed the BBMP appeal, Noorjahan and others
who have purchased the sites from Setlur and others petitioned the BBMP for
registering the khatha. But the BBMP officials dragged the case without taking any action. The applicants made every effect
to get the khatha registered by BBMP and the BBMP was equally adamant on not
making khatha under any circumstances.
LAW OFFICER CONFIRMS!
In fact, the Law Officer had also given his opinion that the
lands in 1909/4 and 1909/5 belongs to Setlur and family and that the BBMP can
register khatha to the site owners by stipulating that in the event of any
objections supported by documents by others, the khatha can be revoked! The law
officer gave this opinion on 28.11.2007.
In spite of this clear legal opinion, the BBMP still dodged the
issue. On 17.12.2007, the official concerned recorded
that the khatha cannot be issued at this stage as the same has to be done
through Akrama-Sakrama Scheme and that there is a civil case pending over the
property. The file was again sent to the Joint Commissioner (Welfare) who after
realising the dismissal of the civil case among parties, directed to implement
the opinion of the law officer to make khatha with some conditions. The DC
(Estate) sent the file to the JC (East) for taking necessary action. As such,
there was no bar of registration of khatha and the Akrama-Sakrama is irrelevant
in this issue.
Interestingly, the file was sent back
to the DC (Estates) to provide information under RTI to an applicant on
22.2.2008. Then nobody heard about the file till 6.2.2009 when the files were
called by the SP of the BBMP Task Force. And now, the matter takes another
turn. The Revenue Officer of Shanthinagar sent the file to the Additional
Commissioner (East) to verify whether the properties belong to BBMP or belong
to private parties through spot inspection as the Raja Kaluve exists in this
property. This was only a ploy to drag the file as there was no need for any
further verification.
The City Survey has clearly demarcated the boundaries and given
CTS Nos.1909/4 and 1905/5 and declared that these properties belong to Setlur
and family. However, the Additional Commissioner acting on the opinion of the
RO, made a startling note to the effect that the legal cell has given
conflicting opinion and that the same has to be sent back to the legal cell for
clear opinion!
Of course, the file moved from one officer to another and
finally, on 14.7.2009, the Shirestedar has noted that the khatha can be made
with conditions, only after verifications that the applicants are in possession
of their sites. And there was more. The ARO, Shanthinagar who earlier put a
brake on the file for recommending resurvey and verifying the BBMP ownership
over the properties has rejected the proposal of conditional khatha by stating
that the khatha cannot be effected by collecting betterment charges as the
property does not come under the five conditions for registering khathas. What
more, the ARO also recommended to file an appeal with the Director of Land
records against the orders of the JDLR dated 3.9.2002. It may be recalled that,
the BBMP had gone to KAT in appeal against the same
orders in 2004 and the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. Now, if the
BBMP wants to make fresh appeal to the Director of Land Records, then the
question is, what was the BBMP doing for all these seven years?
ADALAT KA FAISLA!
Having exhausted all the avenues for getting the khathas to
their names, the applicants were left with no other alternatives except to
approach the High Court with a Writ Petition. They filed Writ Petition in the
High Court (W.P.Nos.37615 and 37616 of 2009) and on 23.9.2010, the High Court
issued a direction to the BBMP to consider the Petition for khatha and do the
needful within two months.
THE DRAIN TURNS!
Aftermath the HC orders, the Revenue Officer invented another
excuse that the request cannot be considered as the Raja Kaluve passes through
these lands. On the contrary, the owners gave an affidavit to surrender the
lands if it is proved that it is a Rajakaluve. The hard fact is that the Raja
Kaluve abets the lands and not goes through it. The Enquiry Officer of the
Survey has clearly given a different CTS number to the Rajakaluve also.
MERI AWAAZ SUNO!
The gist and essence of the entire proceedings is to deny
registering the khatha to the land owners. It is another matter that the owners
have approached every possible forum to get redressed.
They have approached the legislative committee on public grievances, Lokayukta,
Mayor and other officials. Despite the records favouring them, the BBMP is
dragging its feet. One can only assume that the land which is worth crores is
being eyed by powerful people with high links. Even the HC order has not come
to the rescue of the owners and the High Court itself has not entertained their
contempt of court petitions. And even now, the owners are making efforts to get
the khatha and the BBMP is equally resigning their moves.
CLAIM WITHOUT DOCUMENTS!
Interestingly, the BBMP is claiming the ownership over the land
without any documents or evidences. When the owners got the survey department
to recognise their ownership, the BBMP went in appeal and got the snub. The
legal cell had clearly opined that the land in question belongs to the owners
and recommended ‘conditional’ khatha. But, the BBMP officials continued to play
truant in the matter and prevent registration of khatha to the property by one
or the other excuse.
Interestingly, each time, the file moves either through a
direction from the HC or the other senior officials, the lower rung officials
ensure to continue the file from the beginning to delay the process and
whenever a new JC or Additional Commissioner changes, the file gets moved
afresh with different opinions.
THE FINAL ONSLAUGHT!
Finally, the BBMP officials who realised
that they cannot drag the file for ever issued an endorsement to the parties
stating that their request for khatha registration can be considered only after
they get the lands converted. In their endorsement dated 5.1.2012, the Joint
Commissioner (East) has asked the parties to provide documents to prove their possession
and flow of rights, title and ownerships and the relationship between the sellers
and the owners. The JC made it clear that as the registration of khathas to
revenue properties have been prohibited from 2007, the parties have to get the
land converted from proper authority and submit the conversion order to
consider their
request!
This is the height of stupidity and clearly shows the mala fide
intention of the official. If the JC had referred to the legal cell’s opinion in
2007, he would have realised that the lands were converted decades back. The
contention of the JC that the lands are in possession of the BBMP is only from
the records, while the hard fact is that the same has been stuck down by the
Survey department through an order. The BBMP has appealed to the JDLR and KAT
against this order and the appeals were dismissed. The Legal Cell has dealt in
detail with these matters in 2007 itself. And now, the JC wants another legal
opinion. Interestingly, the JC (Welfare) had given specific
opinion regarding the matter stating that all claims of BBMP over the property
have come to naught and there is no way khatha can be denied to the owners.
CONVERSION GOOGLY!
To top it all, in the endorsement, the JC has asked the parties
to get the land conversion for which one should have the ownership and title
over the land. In this case, the BBMP is not willing to admit the ownership of
Setlur and family who sold the lands to others. Then, how one can expect the
parties to get the conversion order from the government? It is just a ploy by
the JC to bury the matter deep into the forest.
To put it bluntly, the land is a big one considering the
location that is abetting Hosur Road and touching upon the Eagle Street. It
commands huge premiums and that is why some powerful people have cast their
eyes upon this property and made the BBMP, their stooge to prevent the
legitimate owners to get the khatha.
More interestingly, the BBMP has affected the khathas for big apartments built in CTS No.1909/1. Shockingly, the EO of the Survey department has ordered that the land in 1909/1 belongs to BBMP! This takes as back to BBMP tricks. The BBMP, which owns CTS 1909/1, has registered khathas in private person's names in the same property. And while 1909/4 & 1909/5 does belong to private owners, the BBMP is not prepared to register khatha for the same. Strange it is! Any comments…
No comments:
Post a Comment