DANGEROUS BUIDER – BUSINESSMEN – SECURITY THREAT TO THE NATIONS PRESTIGIOUS LAB AND AN AF STATION – THEY ARE – ONLY FOR PROFIT


NOTORIOUS BUILDERS AND BUSINESSMEN HAVE THE LEAST RESPECT FOR THE  LAW OF THE LAND (OBTAIN CLEARANCES AND APPROVALS FROM THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS BY DIFFERENT MEANS BY MISREPRESENTATION), UTTER DISREGARD TO THE SAFETY OF THE BUILDING AND THE CITIZENS AND ABOVE ALL, THEIR PROJECTS ARE – A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY – ONLY INTEREST IS –  PROFITS –  MONEY – PROFITS – .

There are other professionals with least regard to the citizens and the safety of the country support them in their endeavor/rendezvous for monetary benefit – banks-who conduct legal enquiry into their papers and approve the project loans for dual profits from the builder and the borrower – PUT THE NATIONS SECURITY AT HIGH RISK – BOMB THE HOPES OF THE CITIZENS – AND PUT THE BUYERS OF SUCH PROPERTY AT HIGH RISK.

ONE SUCH PROJECT GOT THE BOOT FROM THE JUDICIARY AND ANOTHER BUILDER/PROJECT WHICH IS A `TERROR THREAT` TO THE NATIONS SECURITY IS IN FULL SWING.

CITIZENS AND THE BUYERS MUST EXERCISE UTMOST CAUTION(USE ONLY SIMPLE COMMON-SENSE)(NO EXTRA ORDINARY INTELLIGENCE OR KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED) IN FINALISING THE PROPERTIES IN THESE AREAS AND FROM THESE INFAMOUS (SAID TO BE TOP BUILDERS)BUILDERS.

REAL ESTATE REGULATION – A REALITY


THE CABINET ON TUESDAY CLEARED THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER REAL ESTATE(REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) BILL 2013, SEEK TO SET UP THE REGULATOR IN EVERY STATE TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE BUYERS AND TO ENSURE FAIR PRACTICES IN THIS SECTOR.

SUGGESTIONS INVITED BY THE LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA ON ELECTORAL REFORMS


The Law Commission of India Invites Suggestions on Electoral Reforms

The issue of ‘Electoral Reforms’ has been referred by the Central Government to the Law Commission of India for consideration and for suggesting comprehensive measures for changes in laws relating to elections. Acknowledging the importance of the subject, the Commission has prepared a Consultation Paper eliciting feedback from various stakeholders.

           The election system comprises a complex web of different nuances – legal, political, economic, social, religious, ethical and moral and this complexity makes the task of suggesting reforms quite challenging.  No single aspect of election process can be looked at in isolation from others.   Most, if not all areas of these aspects, are of the nature where law either interacts or need to interact more closely.  The focus of the Consultation Paper is, therefore, to identify those areas and aspects where law should play more prominent and engaging role.

          The Commission proposes to focus largely on issues such as: qualifications/disqualifications of  those seeking election, or disqualification of the persons already elected; modes, methods and quantum of funding of elections; transparency, accountability and sources of spending by political parties and their respective candidates during elections; regulations and ethical conduct of political parties or candidates participating in elections; filing of false affidavits – A ground for disqualification; electronic and print Media – impact of ‘paid news’; quantum of punishment for electoral offences; and adjudication of election disputes etc.

          The Commission, through the Consultation Paper, has solicited views/suggestions of political parties, states, civil society, and all other stakeholders, inter-alia, on the aforesaid issues.

         The Consultation Paper has been made available on the website of the Law Commission of India – http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in and can be downloaded freely.

         Those desirous of submitting comments/suggestions may send their written comments/suggestions to the Secretary, Law Commission of India, Hindustan Times House, 14th Floor, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 by E-mail: lci-dla@nic.in  or by hand/post latest by 30th June, 2013.

 

IRREGULARITIES, VIOLATIONS AND DEVIATION IN BUILDING PLAN SANCTIONED


IT HAS BEEN RECENTLY NOTICED THAT A MAJOR IRREGULARITY HAS CREPT IN THE PROCESS OF SANCTIONING BUILDING PLANS IN THE BANGALORE EAST TALUK, DELIBERATELY HUSHED UP BY BOTH THE BBMP/BDA AND THE DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS, WHEN CONFRONTED WITH LEGAL/LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE, THEY BACK OUT, STATING `THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE AND IT IS LEGAL` IF YOU ARE INTERESTED BUY IT, OTHERWISE, GET LOST.  DUE TO THE RECENT PRICE HIKE, THE BUYERS ARE IN TEARING HURRY TO BOOK AND BUY PROPERTIES, WITHOUT PROPER SCRUTINY. 

VERY SOON, THESE VIOLATIONS AND IRREGULARITIES WILL BE BROUGHT TO BOOK BY NEW GOVERNMENT.

 

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION ON THE ENCROACHMENT AND ILLEGAL OCCUPATION BY MAFIA FILED AT HIGH COURT


A GROUP OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WHO WERE CONCERNED WITH THE ILLEGAL OCCUPATION AND ENCROACHMENT OF BDA, KHB, KIADB, GOMALA  AND GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES/LAND ACROSS THE STATE, HAVE FILED A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SEEKING A DIRECTION FROM THE COURT FOR THE RECOVERY AND PUNITIVE ACTION AGAINST THE OFFENDERS. 

MANY HI-FI GOVT LANDS OCCUPIED/ENCROACHED/UNDER POSSESSION WITH THE HELP OF MANIPULATED DOCUMENTS BY THE MIGHTY/RICH/POWERFUL GROUPS, LAND MAFIA, LANDS ENCROACHED BY ILLEGAL OCCUPANTS, BDA PROPERTIES ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED AND SOLD(MANY OF THESE HAVE BBMP KATHAS- A PARADOX- ABOUT 2000 ACRES OR OVER 20000 TO 40000 SITES) AND INDUSTRIAL LANDS CONVERTED ILLEGALLY BY THE BUILDERS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, ARE THE HIGH VALUE AND HIGH END PROPERTIES, WHICH MUST BE RECOVERED AND ALL THESE POWERFUL(FRAUDS AND CHEATS) MUST BE MADE TO COOL THEIR HEELS IN JAIL.  IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT ALL THE BUYERS OF THESE PROPERTIES HAVE BOUGHT THESE PROPERTIES AT THROWAWAY PRICES, AS THEY ARE AWARE OF THE FACTS OF THE PROPERTIES. 

IT IS ALSO FELT BY A GROUP OF CITIZENS, THAT THE MOST INFAMOUS REGULARISATION SCHEME `AKRAMA-SAKRMA` MUST BE PUT ON HOLD AND GOVERNMENT MUST NOT REGULARISE SUCH VIOLATION AND DEVIATION.

TECH PARK NEAR HEBBAL


A SMALL TIME SILK CLOTH MERCHANT ON CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE STREET, NEAR AVENUE ROAD, FROM AN UNKNOWN DESTINATION IN RAJASTHAN, CAME WITH 0000000000,CLAIMS TO BE AN EXPORTER,  BUILT A REAL ESTATE EMPIRE WITHOUT ANY EDUCATIONAL NOR TECHNICAL BACKGROUND, WORTH OVER RS1000 CRORES IN A VERY SHORT SPAN WITH THE HELP OF POLITICIAN AND BUREAUCRATS, ALLEGED TO HAVE LARGE SCALE IRREGULARITIES IN LAND ACQUISITION.

A LARGE CHUNK OF RACHENAHALLY VILLAGE, WHICH WAS ACQUIRED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BY THE BDA WAS TRANSFERRED FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE DEVELOPER. THE PRICES OF RESIDENTIAL SITES IN THAT AREA IS SOLD BETWEEN RS5,000/- TO RS7,000 A SQUARE FEET.  THE ORIGINAL OWNERS OF THE LAND HAVE BEEN PAID A PITTANCE OF RS 20,00,000/- AN ACRES, WHILE THE REAL ESTATE COMPANY MADE BILLIONS.

 

 

URBAN PROPERTY OWNERSHIP RECORD – PROPERTY ID IN BANGALORE


THE NOVEL SCHEME INITIATED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE IDENTIFICATION RECORDS HAS SOME NOVEL PROCEDURES.

1). THE DEPARTMENT WILL ISSUE NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO PRODUCE ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO THE PROPERTY.

(50% does not have proper records and 75% of the buildings have abnormal violaion or deviation or not constructed as per sanctioned building plan. 75% of the commercial buildings does not have OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE)

2). THE RECORDS WILL BE VERIFIED.

(tooooooooooooo mmmmmmmmmany defects and discrepancy will be found)

3). THE DETAILS WILL BE PLACED FOR VERIFICATION/INSPECTION(PUBLIC) AND INVITE OBJECTIONS OR COMMENTS OR AMENDMENT OR OMISSION REGARDING THE PROPERTY DETAILS.

4). A NOMINAL VERIFICATION OR THE PROCESS FEE WILL BE CHARGED.

5). UPOR IS ISSUED.

DLF & SAUDELA CONSTRUCTIONS AND BMTF


THE BMTF CHIEF HAS WRITTEN TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVT OF KARNATAKA, ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THESE (3)(DLF, SAUDELA AND THE OTHER)BUILDERS AND HAVE REQUESTED THE CS TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION AGAINST 27 ERRING OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE FORMER BDA CHIEF, MR.BHARAT LAL MEENA. 

IT CAME AS A SURPRISE THAT THE TAINTED, THE ARRESTED AND THE  RELEASED TOWN PLANNING MEMBER HAS BEEN REINSTATED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THE GOVERNMENT HAS SOUGHT THE CONCRETE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE AGAINST THE OFFICERS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN DLF & SAUDELA ROAD WIDENING AND ENCROACHMENT SCAM, TO INITIATE ACTION.

THE CIVIC ACTION GROUP WHICH HAD ISSUED A PRESS PUBLICATION HAS STATED THAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST IMMEDIATELY TAKE STEPS AND STOP THE CONSTRUCTION.  BUT, INSPITE OF BMTF CRIMINAL CASE AND LOKAYUKTA INVESTIGATION, NONE OF THE ALLEGED CULPRITS HAVE BEEN ARRESTED. THE ALLEGED VIOLATORS ARE ROAMING FREE. 

IT IS ALSO SAID THAT THE VIOLATORS ARE WIELDING INFLUENCE ON THE OFFICERS NOT TO INITIATE ANY ACTION.  THE ALLEGED VIOLATORS HAVE MISREPRESENTED THE FACTS WITH A CLEAR INTENT OF DECEPTION TO OBTAIN FINANCIAL GAINS AND HAVE NOT BEEN ARRESTED TILL DATE.

IT IS A MIRACLE THAT THEY ARE COLLECTING MONEY BY GETTING THE SALE AGREEMENTS SIGNED BY THE BUYERS.  THE BUYERS, WHO ARE ALSO THE BENEFICIARIES OF THESE VIOLATIONS ARE TRIGGER HAPPY TO SIGN THE SALE AGREEMENT AS THEY ARE GETTING THE PROPERTY FOR A LESSER PRICE.

IN SOME CASES, THE ALLEGED VIOLATORS ARE MISLEADING THE BUYERS, ARE COMPELLING THEM TO SIGN THE SALE AGREEMENT, WHICH IS TOTALLY UNFAIR AND ONE SIDED AND ARE DEMANDING PAYMENT.  MANY UNSUSPECTING BUYERS, WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE AND THE INTENSITY OF THE LEGAL BATTLE GOING ON IN THE CMM COURT(CRIMINAL CASE), LOAKYUKTA COURT AND HIGH COURT ARE SIGNING THE AGREEMENTS.

THE ALLEGED VIOLATORS ARE GOING AHEAD WITH ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION WITH AN INTERIM STAY ORDER FROM THE HIGH COURT.  ONE OF THE BUILDER DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT CLEARANCE FROM THE BBMP. 

THE MARKETING TEAM FROM THE ALLEGED VIOLATORS/BUILDERS ARE NOT EVEN AWARE OF THE CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST THE COMPANY AND THE PROJECT AND ARE COLLECTING HUGE SUMS OF MONEY AND GOD ONLY KNOWS WHETHER THESE PROJECTS FINALLY FINDS THE SUNSHINE OR GROPE IN DARKNESS WITH FULL FLEDGED LITIGATION.

THE CIVIC ACTION GROUP HAS WRITTEN A LETTER TO BESCOM NOT TO SUPPLY POWER BASED ON THE CRIMINAL CHARGES IN CMM COURT, LOKAYUKTA COURT AND HIGH COURT.  THEY HAVE REQUESTED THE AUTHORITIES NOT TO SUPPLY POWER.

IT HAS ALSO COME TO LIGHT, THEY HAVE APPROACHED THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, TO INITIATE AND TAKE SUITABLE ACTION AGAINST SOME OF THE BANKS WHO ARE SANCTIONING HOME LOANS TO THESE PROJECTS AND HAS REQUESTED THE RBI TO RECALL THE LOAN SANCTIONED, FROM THE BORROWERS.

ONE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATORS AND BUILDERS DOES NOT PRODUCE OR SUBMIT ANY DOCUMENT TO THE BUYERS FOR LEGAL VERIFICATION AS IF, IT CONTAINS THE ATOM BOMB FORMULA, IN A BID TO CONCEAL AND HIDE THE FACTS ABOUT THE PROJECT. 

HIRANANDANI UPSCALE-BEGUR- IS ALSO IN SERIOUS TROUBLE


THE LOAKYUKTA COURT HAS DIRECTED THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATION AND SUBMIT THE REPORT TO THE COURT BY 15, DEC ON THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SAUDELA CONSTRUCTION- A COMPANY UNDER HIRANANDANI GROUP, WHICH IS DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY AT BEGUR VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, ON BANNERGATTA ROAD, ON VIOLATIONS. 

THE PROJECT MAY BE GROUNDED.

A NEWS REPORT:

A NEWS REPORT
A NEWS REPORT

BUILDER`S ANTICS & TACTICS AT BANGALORE


AS IT IS SAID, THE VIOLATIONS AND IRREGULARITIES ARE A WAY OF LIFE FOR CHEATS AND FRAUDS, EVEN THE GENTLEMEN `BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS` ARE TAKING SHELTER UNDER THIS UMBRELLA. 

WHEN ILLEGALITIES/VIOLATIONS AND NON COMPLIANCE TO THE PREVAILING LAWS ARE BROUGHT TO NOTICE OR INTIMATED WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE OWNERS/SELLERS/DEVELOPERS, CORNERED WITH THE TRUTH AND FACTS, THEY RESORT TO LOTS OF ANTICS AND GIMMICKS: READ FEW SUCH STATEMENTS:

A)WE ARE LEADING BUILDERS AND DO NOT HAVE THE INTENTION TO CHEAT!!!(FALSE)

THE TRUTH IS:

THEY SUBMIT DOCUMENTS EITHER FAKE/TAMPERED/IRRELEVANT/MISREPRESENTED TO OBTAIN THE CLEARANCES FROM THE STATUTORY GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES WITH A CLEAR INTENTION TO DECEIVE OR COMMIT FRAUD FOR BONAFIDE BENEFIT OR FINANCIAL GAIN.

B)WHEN PROVED, THAT THEIR DOCUMENTS OR LICENSES ARE NOT LEGAL OR REGULAR OR NOT AS PER LAW:

THEY TRY TO PROVIDE IRRELEVANT DETAILS AND CONTEND THAT IT IS THE LAW.

C). THE BANKS HAVE CLEARED OR APPROVED THE PROJECT, HENCE, THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY LEGAL INVESTIGATION OR THE TITLES ARE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.

NO.  IT IS NOT TRUE. BANK LOAN SANCTION WILL NOT CLEAR THE IRREGULARITIES/VIOLATIONS AND CONFER GOOD MARKETABLE TITLES. (AS PER THE DIRECTIVES OF THE RBI, THE BANKS CANNOT AND MUST NOT FINANCE OR LEND OR SANCTION HOME LOANS TO PROPERTIES WHICH ARE NOT CONSTRUCTED AS PER THE BYE LAW OR THE SANCTIONED PLAN AND HAVE IRREGULARITIES)

D). FINALLY, WHEN THEY ARE CORNERED AND DO NOT HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVES (LIES) TO SAY.

THEY SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF YOU WANT, YOU BUY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

424 ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORISED LAYOUTS IN BMRDA JURISDICTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORISED LAYOUTS IN BMRDA JURISDICTION

BMRDA HAS IDENTIFIED AND HAVE INITIATED ACTION AGAINST 424 ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORISED LAYOUTS IN ITS JURISDICTION IN ANEKAL, MAGADI, KANAKAPURA ROAD, NELAMANGALA ,HOSKOTE, DEVANAHALLY AND MYSORE ROAD AREAS.IT IS RELIABLY LEARNT THAT THE AUTHORITY HAS APPROACHED THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND THE JURISDICTIONAL SUB-REGISTRARS FOR DETAILS AND APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST THE OFFENDERS IN SOME CASES.

B FORM PROPERTIES


THERE IS HIGH RISK INVOLVED IN BUYING PROPERTIES WITHOUT BBMP KATHA.  PROPERTIES WITH B FORMS MAY HAVE DEFECTS, DISCREPANCIES AND IS IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PREVAILING MUNICIPAL AND TOWN PLANNING LAWS.  IT IS ISSUED TO PROPERTIES WITH VIOLATION, NON COMPLIANCE AND IS IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PRESENT STATUTES.

PURCHASERS OF THE PROPERTIES MUST EXERCISE UTMOST CAUTION.  BANK LOANS WILL NOT CONFER THE TITLE NOR KATHA(BBMP LIMITS)

THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HAS COME DOWN HEAVILY ON THE OFFICIALS FOR NOT HAVING ACTED ON THE ILLEGAL, UNAUTHORISED BUILDINGS, BUILDINGS WHICH HAVE VIOLATED THE BY LAWS AND BUILDINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN BUILT WITHOUT TOWN PLANNING APPROVALS.

IT IS DANGEROUS TO BUY BUILDINGS WITH DEVIATIONS. THE RBI HAS DIRECTED THE BANKS TO SANCTION LOANS ONLY TO THE BUILDINGS AND PROPERTIES, WHICH ARE BUILT AS PER THE SANCTIONED BUILDING PLAN.

BESCOM AND BWSSB DOES NOT SUPPLY POWER AND WATER TO THE BUILDINGS WHICH ARE BUILT IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PREVAILING LAWS AND THE BUILDINGS WHICH HAVE DEVIATED/BUILT AGAINST THE BY LAWS OR SANCTIONED BUILDING PLANS.  THE OWNERS/BUILDERS/DEVELOPERS SUBMIT THE SANCTIONED PLAN AND OBTAIN THE POWER AND WATER.  IF AT ANY POINT OF TIME, IF IT IS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE IN WRITING WITH PROOF AND EVIDENCE, THE SUPPLY WILL BE DISCONNECTED.

Shankar Mahadev Bidari – A hero, Bidari along with his team risked their lives for the country -A view of one of the readers


I have been surprise by the judgment of hon’ble justice N.Kumar recently given in context of DGP of Karnataka,Shri Shankar Bidri.In 2011 Justice N.Kumar judgment given for Karnataka speaker ruling also was overruled by Chief justice kheher along with another judge of three judges bench .While Judges are called God in our country and they are above criticism but recent cases of judicial chauvism can’t be denied and there are many reasons that judicial accountability bill are brought to parliament and is passed into law recently .While we consider Judgments delivered by judges are to be respected we should not forget that not all but may be one or two judges are biased and judgments may be delivered with any motive to malign somebody or affect somebody’s prospective with some hidden agenda . According to me while human rights report of the STF commander Shri Shankar Bidri was given too much preference by justice N.Kumar over his sacrifice in controlling the menace of Verrapan who created regular panic in tamilnadu and Karnataka over decades and that lead to two riots taking place among two communities in state of Karnataka.Shri Shankar bidri stayed for months in jungles with his team, risked their lives and sacrificed STF men but bought peace to much extent in Karnataka, whose sacrifice resulted in praise by all parties in Karnataka and STF was rewarded.Kidnapping of Rajkumar by same verrappan that almost led to chances of fall of congress government led by shri Krishna and both tamilnadu and Karnataka people were close to riot . There may be excesses by some of the team of STF but stray cases are there always in any law and order maintaining force in all over world.What about excesses done by verappan on villagers, STF personals, their families who lived under tension over years till verappan was killed.What about tension created by verappan in both southern states while kidnapping Dr Rajkumar and his friend , what about torture to their family under mental pressure, how do one brings justice from terrorists , why we give so much preference to human rights of law breakers and highlight them as if Shri Shankar bidri is inhuman.Did any body considered his part of story or truth or just take decision That based on two affidavits of die hard supporters of known fugitive veerappan Hon’ble Justice N.Kumar could compare Shri Shankar Bidri worse than Gaddaffi and Saddam Hussain.Did Justice N.Kumar studied what has been done for years by Saddam Hussain that led to many lives buried and later thousands of graves were found after his death, in worst of genocides known in history he created over decades.Gadaffi looted his own country over decades and did no sacrifice his life but killed all those who opposed him and did genocide and both saddam and gaddafi ruined economies of their country and looted own countrymen where as Shri Bidri led his men to get rid of a fugitive Verrapan sought after by two neighboring states. Those who led their lives to bring to justice fugitives if are compared with saddam and gadaffi and removed from their post which brave men will led their life for our country against naxals, terrorists .People like Gilani in jammu and Kashmir freely move, who eat in our country, criticize our country, support terrorists openly and openly extend logistic supports to Pakistan anti india lobby and they will further roam free ,and our hard earnings goes to tax money that is spent on maintaining peace in Kashmir and our forces don’t have ammunitions to fight when needed ,because of judicially biased judgment l delivered and importance to wrong issues. Why do we blame terrorists when we have terrorists in our system who punishes martyrs and supports fugitives and terrorists. According to me, judgment  that led to many married daughters losing their rights on their fathers properties because Shri N.Kumar in 2010 in Pushpalatha case in Karnataka high court judgment case delivered a unnecessary lengthy judgment of around 120 pages where he observed that married daughters who were born after 17.6.56 will only get equal right in their fathers property.I feel that there is no need to deal in any matter whatsoever about date of birth issue after 17 6 56 as the puspalatha case has nothing to do with the date of birth issue and this has affected many poor married daughters right. These sorts of judgments are like slow killings to those who are affected of these faulty judgments ,I failed to understand What was the need  to deal with date of issue in pushpalata case who was born after 1956, his father got ancestral property under registered partitioned unchallenged and it became his self acquired property therefore his all siblings has equal right as per 17 .6 .56 HSA act, there was no ambiguity for Shri N.Kumar to raise and debate date of birth issue that led many married daughters to suffer and loose their equal rights born prior to 17 6 56 after his prejudiced judgment . it was legal partition pushpalata father got in year 1967 and he died intestate in year 1984.though the judgment favored pushpalata, there was no need for date of birth issue and its lengthy debate over 120 pages and the issue was irrelevant and it is needed that the chief justice of India should review the case. Justice N.Kumar also did not mentioned perhaps intentionally pravat Chandra pattanaik vs sarat Chandra pattanaik case AIR 2008 Orissa 133 ,Sugalbai vs. gundappa maradi and ors ILR 2007 KAR 4790;2008(2)Kar LJ :406 .in this two cases date of birth issue was settled that what needed Justice N.Kumar to debate a non issue in a different case of pushpalata where date of birth issue was irrelevant and he wrote more than 120 pages of observation that led to affect many married women in this country where people does not have much knowledge of law. Is it not than human right violation also as wrong judgment irrelevant to DOB issue in wrong case against settled principal of law  that led many married daughters to suffer ? I want all legal brains of this country to review  judgment of 2010 and they will find truth in my views, which are not against anybody.

How a hero of India from Karnataka having clean career over decades is put into trouble by this controversial judgement.I call all justice seeking people to read the judgment in case of pushpalatha and see how it damaged married daughters rights ,his judgment than can be termed as  judgment if he treats human rights violations so eagerly and seriously as he did in case of DGP of Karnataka, and the judgment was faulty, illegal, prejudiced.While my intention is not to malign any judge and not a complain but as a commen citizen I feel certain wrongs are to be corrected when some one projects himself a true and honest person to give justice .Please give justice to Brave hero like Shri Shankar Bidri who became victim of judicial chauvism in name of human right violation.Human right violation has become tool in hand of certain vested people and they use it time to time to punish their adverseries.

Mr.Mukesh Jain.

SJR LUXURIA- SJR DEVELOPERS PROJECT AT BANNERGATTA ROAD (ARAKERE) IS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE


A NEWS REPORT ON ALLEGED VIOLATION

THE LOKAUYKTA COURT HAS DIRECTED THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE AND SUBMIT THE REPORT ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND THE OFFICIALS IN DENOTIFYING AND SANCTIONING THE BUILDING PLAN FOR A 7 ACRES AND 29 GUNTAS,(1-17 ACRES FOR THE OWNERS/LANDLORDS RESIDENCES) RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX ENTERED INTO BETWEEN SJR DEVELOPERS AND THE SAID LAND LORDS IN  CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE DENOTIFICATION ORDER.  

THE PLAINT MR.LAKSHMINARAYAN, HAS SUBMITTED A COMPLAINT TO THE COURT WITH ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND THE COURT FELT THAT IT IS A FIT CASE AND MUST BE INVESTIGATED AS IT FOUND SOME PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE.

THE DEVELOPER AND THE BUYERS ARE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE AND A LONG DRAWN LEGAL BATTLE WILL ENSUE. 

THE SURVEY NUMBERS affected ARE:100,100/p AND 101, Arkere village, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore Urban District.

EXTENT: 7.29 ACRES.

INVESTIGATION AGAINST : 13 OFFICIALS.

REPORT TO BE SUBMITTED WITHIN, 30TH, MARCH,2012.

CASE: SUPPRESSION OF FACTS.

ISSUE:

THE AFORESAID SURVEY NUMBERS WERE NOTIFIED FOR THE CREATION OF BDA LAYOUT.  THE LAND LORDS CONTENTED THAT THEY HAD BEEN UTILISING THE SAID LANDS AS NURSERY(DEVELOPMENT OF NURSERY,PLANTS, SEEDS AND SEEDLING) BASED ON THEIR APPLICATION, THE GOVERNMENT DENOTIFIED THE SAID LAND ON THE CONDITION, IT MUST BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF GROWING PLANTS, DEVELOPING SEEDLINGS & NURSERY.  IF THE APPLICANTS DEVIATE OR VIOLATE, THE DENOTIFICATION ORDER STANDS AUTOMATICALLY CANCELLED.  ANY DC CONVERSION AND SANCTION OF BUILDING PLAN OBTAINED BY  SUPPRESSING THE FACTS OR HIDING THE TRUTH OR THE CONTENTS OF THE OR THE CONDITIONS OF THE DENOTIFICATION ORDER OR MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS IS BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW OR ILLEGAL.

THE PETITIONER HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE CONDITION LAID DOWN, ON WHICH IT HAD BEEN DENOTIFIED, THE LANDLORDS ILLEGALLY ENTERED INTO A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT WITH THE BUILDER TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AND HAS NAMED 13 OFFICIALS, WHO HAD CLEARED THIS PROJECT AND SANCTIONED THE BUILDING PLAN.   EVEN THOUGH, MANY COMPLAINTS WERE LODGED, THE OFFICIALS TURNED BLIND EYE, HENCE THIS PETITION AND INVESTIGATION.

 

CANCEL GPA OR POA OR REVOKE GPA OR POA ?


HAVE YOU EVER EXECUTED A GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY  AND WANT TO CANCEL IT.

DO YOU WISH TO CANCEL IT? EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE EXECUTED IT IN A GROUP, YES!!!  YOU CAN REVOKE IT INDIVIDUALLY?

IT IS SIMPLE:

 REVOKE THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED AND ISSUE A LEGAL NOTICE TO THE AGENT AND MAKE A NEWSPAPER PUBLCIATION.

 REVOCATION OF THE POWER OF  ATTORNEY

LET IS BE KNOWN TO ALL MEN THROUGH  THESE PRESENTS that  I…………….s/o………………..r/o……………….do hereby remove and cancel all the powers and authorities given by me to Shri……….s/o……….r/o……….by virtue of a power of attorney dated……….

I further declare that all or any of the act done or executed by aforesaid Shri…………s/o………….r/o…………under or in pursuance of the aforesaid power of attorney dated…………shall not be deemed to be my acts nor done in my name  or on my  behalf, after the execution of this present deed.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF act……….

 

The daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener BY BIRTH in her own rights and liabilities in the same manner as the son. She will have rights over the ancestral property in the same manner as the son,(subject to the following conditions) if the property had not been partitioned through a registered partition deed or dispossessed due to alienation or by a decree of court or dispossessed through a testament before 20-12-2004.


SC JUDGEMENT ON HSA-12-10-2011

 14. The new Section 6 provides for parity of rights in the

coparcenary property among male and female members of a joint

Hindu family on and from September 9, 2005. The Legislature has

now conferred substantive right in favour of the daughters. According

to the new Section 6, the daughter of a coparcener becomes a

coparcener by birth in her own rights and liabilities in the same manner as the son. The declaration in Section 6 that the daughter of the coparcener shall have same rights and liabilities in the

coparcenary property as she would have been a son is unambiguous

and unequivocal. Thus, on and from September 9, 2005, the daughter

is entitled to a share in the ancestral property and is a coparcener as if

she had been a son.

 

15. The right accrued to a daughter in the property of a joint

Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law, by virtue of the 2005

Amendment Act, is absolute, except in the circumstances provided in

the proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 6. The excepted

categories to which new Section 6 of the 1956 Act is not applicable

are two, namely, (i) where the disposition or alienation including any

partition has taken place before December 20, 2004; and (ii) where

testamentary disposition of property has been made before

December 20, 2004. Sub- section (5) of Section 6 leaves no room for

doubt as it provides that this Section shall not apply to the partition

which has been effected before December 20, 2004. For the

purposes of new Section 6 it is explained that `partition’ means any

partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered

under the Registration Act 1908 or partition effected by a decree of a

court. In light of a clear provision contained in the Explanation

appended to sub-section (5) of Section 6, for determining the nonapplicability of the Section, what is relevant is to find out whether the

partition has been effected before December 20, 2004 by deed of

partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or by a

decree of a court. In the backdrop of the above legal position with

reference to Section 6 brought in the 1956 Act by the 2005

Amendment Act, the question that we have to answer is as to

whether the preliminary decree passed by the trial court on March 19,

1999 and amended on September 27, 2003 deprives the appellants

of the benefits of 2005 Amendment Act although final decree for

partition has not yet been passed.

ATTESTATION OF A DOCUMENT OR DEED – HOW IMPORTANT IS IT?


If a deed or document is to be attested usually by two or more witnesses, it must be very clear from the wordings or the attendant circumstances that the Attestors have signed the deed or document as witnesses. 

 Not just a formality: The Attestor attesting witness must sign the deed or document concerned in the presence of the Executant.

 One of the factors which is not considered to be important in the course of execution and registration of deeds is attestation of deeds. In respect of deeds which are being registered, many parties regard this as a formality. The general approach is that any person who can sign the deed as a witness is good enough to attest the deed. However, this is an important matter and is not to be treated casually. It is desirable to have an understanding of the issues concerned.

 An Attestor is a person who has seen the deed concerned being executed. As such, a party who is executing the deed or document cannot be an Attester. A Power of Attorney holder executing the deed or document is also deemed to be a party and therefore, cannot be an Attestor in his individual capacity. In order that the attestation is proper, the Attestor attesting witness must sign the deed or document concerned in the presence of the Executant. A person who has made the deed or document, namely, the Scribe, can be a valid witness who can attest the deed or document.

 To give a clear picture, if a deed or document is to be attested usually by two or more witnesses, it must be very clear from the wordings or the attendant circumstances that the Attestors have signed the deed or document as witnesses. The witness should have put his signature for the purpose of attesting the deed or document in having seen the Executant sign the deed or must have received an acknowledgement for this purpose. Its execution should happen in the presence of the attesting witness. The purpose is to testify the signature of the Executant. As such, the Attestor must personally know the Executant whose signature he or she attests.

 Different kind

 An attestation is different from an acknowledgement. Attestation is done by a witness. An acknowledgement is done by the party concerned. You will also come across the word “Subscribe” in legal documents. Strictly speaking, the word “Subscribe” does not impute personal knowledge of the matter in consideration and is more in the nature of appending the names of signatures in a mechanical manner.

The term attested, when used in relation to a deed or document, means that the deed or document concerned isattested by two or more witnesses. Each of the witnesses should have seen the Executant sign the document. Each of them should have signed as a witness in the presence of the Executant. However, it is not necessary that the witnesses should sign in the presence of each other. No specific or particular form is prescribed for attestation.  At times, a person may sign his or her name in a deed or document for identifying an Executant. The purpose of this is only to confirm the identity and such an identifier does not become an Attestor for the execution of deed or document concerned.

The term “Sign” would generally mean affixing the signature or otherwise affixing the name or a mark to represent the name of a person. The “signing” should be such that it would bind the person concerned as relating to the aspect of signing. Even the insertion of a name, done in the manner required, may amount to signing, authentication or attestation as the case may be.

 Common errors

 One of the common errors in perception is that, when a person signs as a witness in a deed or document, he or she is taken to have consented to the transaction covered by the deed or document concerned. This is a wrong perception. Merely because the deed or document is attested or witnessed by a person, it does not mean that the person is aware of the contents of the said document. The position of the Attestor is very important. If execution of a deed or document is denied or is doubtful, or is to be proved otherwise, the evidence of the Attestor, in a Court of law or other Authoritywould be vital. If a deed or document under which a property is conveyed to you or under which you may obtain substantial benefits is called in question, and you do not know who the Attestor or witness is, imagine the circumstances that may arise. Documents for which valid attestation by two or more witnesses, is mandatory include Will and Testamentary dispositions, mortgages and Gifts of immovable property. While choosing witnesses for Wills particularly, make sure that in normal circumstances the witnesses would outlive the Testator or Testatrix or the person who makes the Will. Also such a person should be willing to prove the execution of the Will by signing necessary affidavits and if so appear in the Court and give evidence, when the Will takes effect and orders from the court are necessitated.

 Where attestation is mandatory and the execution has been denied, in order to prove that a document has been duly executed, at least one of the witnesses should be called to prove that the document has been duly executed. Such a person should provide satisfactory evidence to the effect that he or she had duly attested the deed or document concerned. He or she should also prove that the deed or document has been duly executed by the Executant.

 An illiterate can be a witness to the execution of a deed or document, provided the other requirements for a valid attestation are satisfied.

 Where the document contains several pages and the Executant has signed each page, it is sufficient if the Attestor has generally seen the execution and at least one signature is attested. In respect of documents for which attestation is mandatory, if the attestation is invalid or is not made, then the transaction or bequest as the case may be intended under the deed or document would not operate. At times, an officer, registering a deed, makes an endorsement to the effect that the Executant is personally known to the Registering Officer concerned. This does not amount toattestation.

 It is to be noted that the purposes for which a person signs the document as a witness may differ. If related to execution, the signature of the witness is to secure the attestation. If relating to presentation of the document for registration, it may be limited to identifying the Executant. Hence, attestation and identification can be made by different persons.

When you are called to witness the execution of a deed or document or when you are calling a person to be a witness for the execution of a document, think of nature and purpose. In law, nothing can be labelled as a trivial or an insignificant matter. Often, it is these very factors which may loom large. An organised approach can save lot of unnecessary hassles.

One sided contract and the consumer protection act- Most of the Sale agreements are totally one sided – Benefits the Builder


The government is set to overhaul the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to provide for acting against unfair terms in contracts which are skewed heavily in favour of service providers or manufacturers or builders or developers. Government officials said discussions are on to bring in transparent rules on unfair contracts. Under the present laws, the contracts are unilateral and there is no protection against unfair contracts. The planned changes are likely to be introduced in Parliament soon. “Work is underway on the issue and we hope to bring the changes for debate soon,” a senior government official said. Often, service providers want consumers to sign on the dotted line even if the terms and conditions are stiff and give little leeway to consumers. Nearly five years ago, the Law Commission had said that in view of the need to protect consumers and particularly to grant protection from the disadvantages of extensive introduction of standard terms of contracts which are one-sided, it has become necessary to evolve general principles regulating unfairness in contracts. 

One Such case is M/s. ARATTUKULAM INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD., A project coming up at Situated at Haralakunte Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.The clause which is under dispute is read like this:

12. The purchaser understands and agrees that the builder/vendor at their discretion can make necessary changes during the execution including minor changes, dimensions specifications and/ or location within the project site. The purchaser is aware that the details furnished in the brochure given by the builder/vendor is only for information and not forming part of an offer whatsoever in nature and the purchaser covenants not to raise any objection or claims in future on this account. 

BASED ON THIS CLAUSE, THE BUILDER IS EXERTING MORE PRESSURE ON THE AGREEMENT HOLDERS TO ACCEPT AND AGREE TO THEIR CHANGED (UNAPPROVED) PLAN.  (Unfair clause)

BUILDING VIOLATION AND DEVIATION AT BANGALORE


THE PROPOSED LIMITS FOR THE REGULARISATION UNDER AKRAMA – SAKRAMA IS

50% IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

25% IN COMMERCIAL BUILDING

THIS INCLUDES FAR VIOLATION + SET BACK DEVIATION OR VIOLATION- 

CHECK OUT YOUR BUILDING, IF YOU ARE A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN AND GET IT REGULARISED AS AND WHEN THE HIGH COURT GIVES ITS VERDICT OR THE GOVERNMENT COMES UP WITH ANOTHER AMNESTY SCHEME.

 

LITIGATIONS- LEASING OR RENTING THE PROPERTIES- APEX COURT`S OBSERVATION


LEASING/RENTING A PROPERTY- GET READY FOR LITIGATION- IF YOU ARE UNLUCKY

ARE YOU BUYING A PROPERTY TO LEASE IT/RENT IT- READ THE RECENT OBSERVATIONS OF THE APEX COURT

Supreme Court has said. ‘Civil courts’ failure to rein in unscrupulous litigants has caused lakhs of house owners not to rent out their premises for fear that tenants would not vacate these and resort to law suits. The court said the situation has come to such a pass because going by cost (risk)-benefit ratio, a person engaged in frivolous litigation finds it profitable in procrastinating the litigation.

It is a matter of common knowledge that lakhs of flats and houses are kept locked for years, particularly in big cities and metropolitan cities, because the owners are not certain that even after expiry of lease or licence period, the house, flat or the apartment would be vacated,’ said the apex court bench.  The deceitful acts of such litigants get aided by the reluctance of the courts to ‘order restitution and actual costs incurred by the other side’, the apex court observed. ‘Unfortunately, our courts are flooded with these cases because there is an inherent profit for the wrongdoers in our system,’ the judgment said.

Speaking for the bench, The Justice said: ‘It takes decades for the final determination of the controversy and the wrongdoers (unscrupulous litigants) are never punished. Pragmatic approach of the courts would partly solve the housing problem of this country.

The Apex Court, While Directing  the civil courts said not to grant ex-parte injunctions without hearing the other side, the judgment said that even if injunction had to be granted, it should be time-bound and for a short period.The apex court issued 10 commandants that the trial courts in civil matters must follow, both in letter and spirit, in dealing with such cases.