Vested interests alter BDA land boundaries

Vested interests alter BDA land boundaries

It has now come to light that the boundaries of the land in survey number 20 of Nagadevanahalli (Kengeri hobli), where Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had formed Visvesvaraya Layout, were changed and survey sketches altered to benefit vested interests.

The land was denotified by the H D Kumaraswamy government in 2007, when the BDA formed the first block of the Visvesvaraya Layout and allotted sites to individuals.

Of the 12 acres and 13 guntas of land BDA acquired in 2001-02, the layout was formed in ten acres. Sites were allotted, sale deeds, khatas and possession certificates were issued in the names of beneficiaries. But in 2007, without informing the site owners, the government denotified the land, setting aside BDA denotification committee’s objection. The matter has now become too controversial for the BDA as well as the government to handle, with site owners approaching the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF), Lokayukta and the High Court.

Those who were benefited from the denotification of ten acres, converted the land use from agriculture to residential purpose. To complicate the matter further, the district administration bifurcated the denotified land into sub-survey numbers of 128, 129 and 130. The BDA, on its part, did not demarcate the boundary of the denotified land comprising ten acres. This allowed the beneficiaries of denotification to change the survey sketch according to their convenience.

The denotification of ten acres was done in two instalments. The first one was for three acres in favour of Purohit Jugraj and the remaining seven acres in favour of K V Nagarathnamma. Both of them were not the actual owners of the land, but held the General Power of Attorney (GPA).

Srikant Channal, one of the victims of the fraudulent denotification, said: “After bifurcation, the entire Survey No 20 was divided into three blocks. Jugraj was shown in survey sketches as holding the ‘A’ block on the northern portion of Survey No 20, while Nagarathnamma was shown having seven acres in the ‘B’ block in the middle portion. The ‘C’ block was divided into two sub-blocks with one sub-block in the south and another one in the east, adjacent to ‘B’ block.”

Channal stated that after the bifurcation, the BDA still possessed two acres and 13 guntas, but the survey sketches were meddled with in such a manner that those benefiting from the denotification claimed ownership of BDA land.

Another victim of the illegal denotification said: “This was done because the land value in the southern portion of Survey No 20 was more, given the fact that a 100 ft road passes through it. Since the BDA had fully developed the layout by laying roads, drains, sewerage lines and electricity, the beneficiaries did not have to invest anything, but simply sell it.”

Liked the story?

  • 0

    Happy
  • 0

    Amused
  • 0

    Sad
  • 0

    Frustrated
  • 0

    Angry