Web Exclusive

A joke doing the rounds in the corridors of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) is that its commissioner Jayakar Jerome changes his mobile phone numbers like his shirts. For the demolition man, however, it's no laughing matter. That's the only way he can keep unwelcome callers at bay.

With the authority's no-nonsense drive against the politician-bureaucrat-land mafia nexus going full steam, such callers are increasing by the day. A senior IAS officer, a former state chief secretary and Congress legislator — few encroachers have been spared. And for the first time in the country, a sitting high court judge has also been served a showcause notice for land violations.

"These encroachers have shown scant respect for the law and our top priority is to reclaim land that rightfully belongs to us," says the tough-talking Jerome. The campaign, which is currently targeting only commercial, and not residential, encroachments, has seen the recovery of 75 acres of prime land, their current market value estimated at Rs 230 crore.

Pushed to a corner, the encroachers have appealed to Chief Minister S.M. Krishna, who holds the BDA portfolio, to go slow on the demolitions, besides asking for Jerome's head. But Krishna's remark that "we don't mind taking on the mighty", has been of little comfort. The BDA, clearly, is on a warpath.

The authority's notice to the high court judge — Justice A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy — pertains to a roughly four-acre plot on the Outer Ring Road near Agara village in Bangalore South taluk. The plot, which is under BDA acquisition (for a housing layout), had been leased out by Reddy and three others to a petrol pump owner. It was first notified under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (LAA) on July 24, 1991, followed by a final notification on May 29, 1996. Directives from the Supreme Court, among others, say the owner's right to deal with this property ends with notification under Section 4 (1) of the LAA and structures erected after the notification would be held to be unauthorised. It is illegal to change the "characteristic of the land".

A few hours after the showcause notice was served, the BDA received a representation seeking denotification of the land. "Our first notification was in 1991 and the rules are clear that if there is any dispute or doubts they would have to revert within 30 days," say BDA officials, puzzled that that representation should be made at the authority after nine years.

BDA officials also contend that if agricultural lands are to be used as petrol bunks, its owners must first make the necessary conversions from agricultural to non-agricultural and then commercial. "They have to first apply for conversion of the land to the deputy commissioner of the district under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act," says BDA Deputy Commissioner A. Rameshappa. Then comes the application to the BDA for changing non-agricultural land into commercial under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. Reddy, clearly, has much accounting to do.

Agianst All Odds
The BDA knows it won't be easy but it is determined to get answers. Even while recovering a two-acre plot in the Kacharakanahalli area in north Bangalore from Bullet raja, a politically well-connected ???, it had battled against all odds. Top Cabinet ministers in the Krishna cabinet had tried to stall demolitions on the land but their efforts had gone in vain.

There was similar pressure mounted when the authority razed to the ground a four-storey illegal structure — Prithvi Mansion — leased by software firm Trigent Software in Koramangala. Infosys Technologies, its first star tenant, had recommended the mansion to Trigent. Over the past 12 years, the building owner had managed to get away by seeking a court stay against demolition a record 75 times. Says Rameshappa: "He was taking the BDA and the courts for a ride all these years."

Much of the problem lay with the BDA Act — commonly referred to as Section 38 C(2). Indefinite stays against demolitions were being secured from these courts under this Act though it had never seen the light of day. Just a day before the J.H. Patel-led JD Government fell last year, it had amended the Act, regularising all unauthorised constructions. The amendment permitted regularisation of any building or structure on BDA land without making a distinction between public places like parks, civic amenity sites and playgrounds. "A person was defined as the original owner, subsequent purchaser or GPA holder," explains Jerome who fought hard against the amendment. He made sure the amendment would not be notified, so it could not be implemented.

His efforts paid off. In June this year, Karnataka Governor V.S. Rama Devi repealed the BDA Act 1999. And as a bonus, a division bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and Justice V.G. Sabhahit dismissed nearly 2,000 cases in BDA's favour in one go.

But litigation is still a major obstacle in recovering encroached land. BDA faces 7,868 cases — 3,144 in the Karnataka High Court, 4,700 in lower courts and 24 in the Supreme Court — which Jerome's legal cell is trying hard to settle. Former state advocate-general S. Vijaya Shankar represents the authority.

The BDA is confident that its crackdown will yield results and that the criminal cases it has filed against encroachers for trespass will be decided in its favour. It's a hope that goes beyond wanting those accused to pay hefty fines and serve up to three years behind bars. It's a hope of making it a landmark campaign.

BUSINESS TODAY | INDIA TODAY PLUS | COMPUTERS TODAY
TEENS TODAY | MUSIC TODAY | ART TODAY | NEWS TODAY | SYNDICATIONS TODAY

Write to us | Subscriptions | Advertise with us
© Living Media India Ltd