By Firoz.T.Totanawala
The Bangalore Metro Reporter
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…
Posts
