<p>Owning a home is the dream of every Bengalurean. But wading through a nightmarish concoction of deceit, forgery and fabrication, they often get trapped by fly-by-night operators. So, 118 people reposed their faith in the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), a government agency tasked with layout formation, only to realise the sites allotted them were illegally formed on a lakebed! <br /><br /></p>.<p>What do they do when they find that BDA itself cannot be trusted? They were all allotted sites on a layout formed on the Venkatarayana Kere, a tankbed in Survey Number 8 of Gubbalala village off Kanakapura Road near Uttarahalli in Bengaluru South Taluk. As many as 18 houses have already come up there. But the others are now at a dead end. Reason: BDA has stopped sanctioning building plans following the revelation that the layout was formed illegally.<br /><br />Deccan Herald, which broke the story on June 11, 2013 under the title, “How BDA stole lake land to form a layout,” was clear: The layout was formed setting aside the existing rules besides Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court directions that prohibit any construction activity on the tankbed. The court directions only echoed a public outcry against disappearing lakes, the adverse impact of the trend on natural habitat of birds, fish, other sweet water creatures and the depleting groundwater table.<br /><br />In limbo <br />The fate of the 118 site owners now hangs in limbo. The Upa Lokayukta Justice Subhash B Adi has ‘suggested’ BDA to provide alternative sites to the site owners and give compensation to those who have already built houses on their allotted sites. His directions followed a complaint lodged by J Kumaraswamy, a resident Gubbalala.<br /><br />BDA Commissioner T Sham Bhatt and its Deputy Secretary Dayanand Bhandari have been begging the Upa Lokayukta to perceive the tankbed layout as a ‘special case’ and spare them, but the latter is in no mood to listen. “Provide me some instance from the Supreme Court or the High Court ruling that allows formation of a layout on the lakebed or give me one example where such violations can be upheld,” Adi had told the BDA officials.<br /><br />Now, BDA has given up all hopes. On condition of anonymity, a senior BDA official told Deccan Herald: “We don't have money to give compensation to those who have built houses. But since illegality has happened, we are not left with any other option but to undo our mistake. We will leave the matter to the State government.”<br /><br />The BDA Board passed a resolution on its January 28 meeting, which has been sent to the Urban Development Minister for approval. While the BDA is cagey about the issue and has been adopting a dilly-dally attitude to take a firm decision, those allotted sites are restless.<br /><br />Allottee voices<br />Reshma, one of the site owners, complains: “We are subjected to a torturous punishment for no fault of us. We are afraid that our houses may be demolished anytime. There are people who want to build houses but the BDA has stopped sanctioning building plan.”<br /><br />B R Murthy, another site owner, has this to say: “I spent all my earnings on this house and now I am left with no money. If the site is taken away and compensation is not paid, I will be ruined. Is this how a government and its agencies work?”<br /><br />A woman, who wished to remain unnamed, narrates her experience: “Three months ago my septuagenarian husband got a site on this tankbed layout registered. Now, we have come to know that there is a dispute due to which we cannot build a house. Where should we go now?”<br /><br />The layout on Venkatarayana Kere bed is a classic case of fence eating the crop as BDA simply rubbished the law of the land. Way back in 2003-04, the BDA, while forming the Banashankari Sixth Stage Extension near Thurahalli, identified this tank. Treating this water body as no one's land, the then Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) of the BDA recommended formation of the layout notifying it as a 'Kharab' land (wasteland). The officer did not specify what type of Kharab it was. The State government too did not bother to seek more details, while giving its nod.<br /><br />Rules violated<br />Existing rules in the State categorises Kharab lands under two types: A Kharab and B Kharab. A Kharab land comprises of pasture land, open field for fairs, festivals and public events, burial grounds, cremation grounds, temples and land reserved for future generation to build schools and government building. B Kharab land comprises of forest land, tanks, lakes, rivers, rivulets, canals, hillocks, and uneven rocky terrain. While the law strictly prohibits any development activity on the B Kharab land, a 2011 Supreme Court order restrains the State government from utilising A Kharab land too.<br /><br />But BDA chose not to respect none of the laws. Sources in the Lake Development Authority (LDA) claim that when the real estate mafia was levelling this tank in 2001-02, the then Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of LDA had written many letters to the revenue department and the forest department -- which was the then custodian of the lake, to protect it from being levelled. Yet the officers maintained a deafening silence. Two years later, the layout emerged. While BDA levelled the lake and formed a layout, Mantri Developers was found to have encroached upon the storm water drain leading to the lake. BBMP too has ordered them to evict the encroachment. Now, the realtors have approached the Karnataka High Court against the Palike order. <br /><br />Discovery of the tank<br />In the course of saving the Subramanyapura Lake near Uttarahalli, Deccan Herald obtained numerous documents including the century old-village maps of at least 10 neighbouring villages. The exercise was aimed at protecting the watershed regions and feeder canals, known as Rajakaluve, of the lake. Documents related to these were also accessed.<br /><br />Maps of villages adjoining the Subramanyapura (erstwhile Maarasandra village) showed the existence of a tank in Sy No 8 of Gubbalala village (Venkatarayana Kere), approximately 350 metres away from Subramanyapura lake. Further investigations revealed that the records of Rights, Tenancy and Crops (RTC) and the village notes (Tippani) did not change and remained as tank ('Kere Angala' in Kannada).<br /><br />Later, Deccan Herald came out with a report, “How BDA stole lake land to form a layout”. A series of RTI applications finally compelled the Tahsildar of Bengaluru South Taluk, Dr Dayanand, to admit that the layout was formed illegally without seeking permission from his predecessors in the office and diverting the land use. He also recommended action against the guilty officers in the BDA.<br /><br />Then came the BDA’s confession in a reply to the RTI application that it had indeed formed the layout illegally. It also conceded that the layout has not yet been approved by the BDA Board itself. The reply raised a serious question over the functioning of the BDA. If the BDA Board had not approved the layout, how did allotment take place? A series of follow-up stories based on the RTI revelation prompted K Nageswar Rao of Arehalli near Uttarahalli to lodge a complaint with the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF) while Gubbalala resident J Kumaraswamy lodged a complaint with the Upa Lokayukta Justice Subhash B Adi.<br /><br /></p>
<p>Owning a home is the dream of every Bengalurean. But wading through a nightmarish concoction of deceit, forgery and fabrication, they often get trapped by fly-by-night operators. So, 118 people reposed their faith in the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), a government agency tasked with layout formation, only to realise the sites allotted them were illegally formed on a lakebed! <br /><br /></p>.<p>What do they do when they find that BDA itself cannot be trusted? They were all allotted sites on a layout formed on the Venkatarayana Kere, a tankbed in Survey Number 8 of Gubbalala village off Kanakapura Road near Uttarahalli in Bengaluru South Taluk. As many as 18 houses have already come up there. But the others are now at a dead end. Reason: BDA has stopped sanctioning building plans following the revelation that the layout was formed illegally.<br /><br />Deccan Herald, which broke the story on June 11, 2013 under the title, “How BDA stole lake land to form a layout,” was clear: The layout was formed setting aside the existing rules besides Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court directions that prohibit any construction activity on the tankbed. The court directions only echoed a public outcry against disappearing lakes, the adverse impact of the trend on natural habitat of birds, fish, other sweet water creatures and the depleting groundwater table.<br /><br />In limbo <br />The fate of the 118 site owners now hangs in limbo. The Upa Lokayukta Justice Subhash B Adi has ‘suggested’ BDA to provide alternative sites to the site owners and give compensation to those who have already built houses on their allotted sites. His directions followed a complaint lodged by J Kumaraswamy, a resident Gubbalala.<br /><br />BDA Commissioner T Sham Bhatt and its Deputy Secretary Dayanand Bhandari have been begging the Upa Lokayukta to perceive the tankbed layout as a ‘special case’ and spare them, but the latter is in no mood to listen. “Provide me some instance from the Supreme Court or the High Court ruling that allows formation of a layout on the lakebed or give me one example where such violations can be upheld,” Adi had told the BDA officials.<br /><br />Now, BDA has given up all hopes. On condition of anonymity, a senior BDA official told Deccan Herald: “We don't have money to give compensation to those who have built houses. But since illegality has happened, we are not left with any other option but to undo our mistake. We will leave the matter to the State government.”<br /><br />The BDA Board passed a resolution on its January 28 meeting, which has been sent to the Urban Development Minister for approval. While the BDA is cagey about the issue and has been adopting a dilly-dally attitude to take a firm decision, those allotted sites are restless.<br /><br />Allottee voices<br />Reshma, one of the site owners, complains: “We are subjected to a torturous punishment for no fault of us. We are afraid that our houses may be demolished anytime. There are people who want to build houses but the BDA has stopped sanctioning building plan.”<br /><br />B R Murthy, another site owner, has this to say: “I spent all my earnings on this house and now I am left with no money. If the site is taken away and compensation is not paid, I will be ruined. Is this how a government and its agencies work?”<br /><br />A woman, who wished to remain unnamed, narrates her experience: “Three months ago my septuagenarian husband got a site on this tankbed layout registered. Now, we have come to know that there is a dispute due to which we cannot build a house. Where should we go now?”<br /><br />The layout on Venkatarayana Kere bed is a classic case of fence eating the crop as BDA simply rubbished the law of the land. Way back in 2003-04, the BDA, while forming the Banashankari Sixth Stage Extension near Thurahalli, identified this tank. Treating this water body as no one's land, the then Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) of the BDA recommended formation of the layout notifying it as a 'Kharab' land (wasteland). The officer did not specify what type of Kharab it was. The State government too did not bother to seek more details, while giving its nod.<br /><br />Rules violated<br />Existing rules in the State categorises Kharab lands under two types: A Kharab and B Kharab. A Kharab land comprises of pasture land, open field for fairs, festivals and public events, burial grounds, cremation grounds, temples and land reserved for future generation to build schools and government building. B Kharab land comprises of forest land, tanks, lakes, rivers, rivulets, canals, hillocks, and uneven rocky terrain. While the law strictly prohibits any development activity on the B Kharab land, a 2011 Supreme Court order restrains the State government from utilising A Kharab land too.<br /><br />But BDA chose not to respect none of the laws. Sources in the Lake Development Authority (LDA) claim that when the real estate mafia was levelling this tank in 2001-02, the then Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of LDA had written many letters to the revenue department and the forest department -- which was the then custodian of the lake, to protect it from being levelled. Yet the officers maintained a deafening silence. Two years later, the layout emerged. While BDA levelled the lake and formed a layout, Mantri Developers was found to have encroached upon the storm water drain leading to the lake. BBMP too has ordered them to evict the encroachment. Now, the realtors have approached the Karnataka High Court against the Palike order. <br /><br />Discovery of the tank<br />In the course of saving the Subramanyapura Lake near Uttarahalli, Deccan Herald obtained numerous documents including the century old-village maps of at least 10 neighbouring villages. The exercise was aimed at protecting the watershed regions and feeder canals, known as Rajakaluve, of the lake. Documents related to these were also accessed.<br /><br />Maps of villages adjoining the Subramanyapura (erstwhile Maarasandra village) showed the existence of a tank in Sy No 8 of Gubbalala village (Venkatarayana Kere), approximately 350 metres away from Subramanyapura lake. Further investigations revealed that the records of Rights, Tenancy and Crops (RTC) and the village notes (Tippani) did not change and remained as tank ('Kere Angala' in Kannada).<br /><br />Later, Deccan Herald came out with a report, “How BDA stole lake land to form a layout”. A series of RTI applications finally compelled the Tahsildar of Bengaluru South Taluk, Dr Dayanand, to admit that the layout was formed illegally without seeking permission from his predecessors in the office and diverting the land use. He also recommended action against the guilty officers in the BDA.<br /><br />Then came the BDA’s confession in a reply to the RTI application that it had indeed formed the layout illegally. It also conceded that the layout has not yet been approved by the BDA Board itself. The reply raised a serious question over the functioning of the BDA. If the BDA Board had not approved the layout, how did allotment take place? A series of follow-up stories based on the RTI revelation prompted K Nageswar Rao of Arehalli near Uttarahalli to lodge a complaint with the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF) while Gubbalala resident J Kumaraswamy lodged a complaint with the Upa Lokayukta Justice Subhash B Adi.<br /><br /></p>