ILLEGAL OR UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION – APARTMENTS – B KATHA – READ THIS NEWSPAPER ARTICLE AND THE SUPREME COURT DIKAT – DEMOLITION MAN WILL BE AT THE DOORS OF UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION – EVEN IF HE IS A CABINET MINISTER !! BUYING AN APARTMENT WITH VIOLATIONS – ENJOY DEMOLITION


IF A MINISTER BUILDS OR CONSTRUCTS A BUILDING VIOLATING THE SANCTIONED BUILDING PLAN, HE HAS TO FACE THE MUSIC AND THE DEMOLITION MAN KNOCKING AT HIS DOORS !!!!

VIOLATION IS A VIOLATION, WHETHER IT IS COMMITTED BY THE MINISTER OR ORDINARY CITIZEN AND THE RULE IS THE SAME FOR EVERYONE!!!

BUYING AN APARTMENT OR SITE WITHOUT PROPER SANCTION, APPROVAL AND CLEARANCE, ANY DAY, THE BUYER HAS TO FEEL THE HEAT AND PAY FOR THE MISTAKES!!!

DARE TO BUY ONE!!! ENJOY THE MUSIC OF DEMOLITION !!!!!!

An adverse ruling by SC in the contempt of court petition filed by activist Nagalakshmi could make the railway minister’s position in the NarendraModi Cabinet untenable

Union railway minister D V Sadananda Gowda’s construction of a five-storey complex at a residential plot in HSR Layout, 3rd Phase has returned to haunt him. Activist Nagalakshmi Bai, 51, who had dragged Sadananda Gowda and his former cabinet colleague and present Sringeri MLA, D N Jeevaraj, to the Karnataka High Court, filed a contempt petition against them in the Supreme Court on Aug 5, 2014. The court has posted the matter for November 11.

“The Railway Minister and his former colleague Jeevaraj have wilfully disobeyed the Supreme Court order which had restrained any further construction at the site and structure in question. But they have gone ahead with construction and other activities at the site. As it is a major violation, I have brought the same to the notice of the Supreme Court through the contempt notice,” Nagalakshmi Bai told Bangalore Mirror.

Nagalakshmi has filed the contempt petition stating that the two had violated the Supreme Court order by going ahead with construction activity when they had been restrained from doing so. She also attached 14 photographs, which she claimed were taken on June 15, 2014, stating they attested to activities carried out when a restraining order was on.

The case dates back to 2011, when Nagalakshmi filed a public interest litigation (PIL) against Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj over violations pertaining to a construction on site numbers 12 and 13 at HSR Layout, 3rd Phase. Nagalakshmi had contended that the two, who were allotted sites measuring 50′ X 80′ each under G category (CM’s discretionary quota) had violated Bangalore Development Authority’s (BDA) lease-cum-sale agreement that restricts lessees/purchasers from subdividing a property and constructing more than one dwelling house on it during the initial 10 years. She had also contended that the duo had amalgamated the two sites even after BDA had rejected an application in this regard.

High Court, which heard the PIL on October 19, 2012, ruled against the duo and asked the BDA to act within three months as per the lease-cum-sale agreement, which empowers the agency to forfeit the land without paying any compensation in case of violation of conditions.

Subsequently, the duo moved the Supreme Court challenging High Court judgment. The Supreme Court passed an order on January 2, 2013, restraining the petitioners from carrying out further construction. “…The petitioners are also restrained from carrying on further construction on the subject plots without the leave of this court,” the apex court had observed.

Speaking to Bangalore Mirror, Gowda said, “I haven’t received any notice pertaining to the contempt petition so far. But I haven’t carried out any sort of work at the site and the allegations reportedly made by the applicant are baseless. Whatever work was carried out at the structure was done before the Supreme Court stay. Nothing was done after that.”
D N Jeevaraj told BM: “I haven’t carried out any activity there and haven’t even gone to the place either except once when I needed a photograph for submission to the Supreme Court. Somebody may have given false information to her (Nagalakshmi Bai).”
Nagalakshmi, however, remained unfazed: “As they have repeatedly violated the rules and even the Supreme Court directive, we will seek action when the matter comes up in November.

COURT CASES – BBMP – ABOUT 3000 UNAUTHROISED CONSTRUCTIONS AND VIOLATION CASES PENDING


A PRESS REPORT: BBMP-UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTIONS,DEVIATIONS AND VIOLATIONS :

3000 CASES OF DEMOLITION IS PENDING

The increasing number of court cases is hampering the day-to-day functioning and ongoing civil works of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The civic agency is spending `20 lakh a year to fight these cases.

At present, 4,012 cases are pending before various courts, including the City Civil Court, the High Court and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT).

Most of the cases are related to deviation during construction, unauthorised construction, land acquisition, road widening and property dispute.

Many ongoing and new projects have been affected because of the cases, according to a BBMP official. The cases related to trade licence, advertisement and khata transfer affect revenue generation as well, the official added.

 BBMP’s Legal Secretary K D Deshpande told Express that most of these cases are related to deviation during construction and unauthorised construction.

 “Some people approach the court after getting notice served from our engineers while some approach the court with the apprehension that the BBMP may take action against them,” he said.

BBMP has a panel of 58 advocates handling cases involving the civic agency.

A senior official said many road widening or footpath projects and ward-level works are getting delayed because of court cases.

“Sometimes, the aggrieved party will appeal to a higher court, if they are not satisfied with the lower court’s judgement. This will delay the projects further,” the official said.

When contacted, BBMP Commissioner M Lakshminarayana said, “In some instances, just because of a petty issue, the work is delayed.”

Explaining one such case, he said for a road widening, if the BBMP needs 12 feet, the owner of the house will be ready to give only 10 feet.

“As lower officials have less powers, they stick to their demand of 12 feet, and the house owner goes to court. When the owner has agreed to give 90 per cent of the land required, BBMP can handle the case through the Lok Adalat”, he detailed.

He said the civic agency can reduce legal expenses if the cases are disposed at Lok Adalat. “The officials have been instructed to identify cases that can be disposed off at Lok Adalats. A circular will be sent to all the eight Zonal Commissioners in this regard”, the Commissioner added.