<p>Close on the heels of State Urban Development Minister Vinaykumar Sorake pulling up Mysuru City Corporation (MCC) officials for failing to mop up revenue, it has emerged that the local body was yet to collect prorata (development fee) from 271 buildings in the city.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Replying to a query of Independent Corporator R Raveendra Kumar (Ward 41) during the council meeting, held here, on Thursday, Executive Engineer of MCC Raju presented a report provided by the Town Planning section, the sole authority to approve building plan, facilitating the licence towards construction works.<br /><br />Quoting the report, the official said, starting from the year 2007-08 up to the current fiscal, a total of 352 building plans (multi-storey structures, including domestic and commercial, under prorata fee structure) were sanctioned. However, barring 81 cases, the fee remains to be collected in the remaining 271 cases.<br /><br />During the current fiscal, 21 licences have been sanctioned and prorata fee remains to be collected. Prior to that, 22 licences were sanctioned in the year 2013-14 and the fee remains to be collected in 13 cases.<br /><br />Accordingly, 50 licences were sanctioned in 2012-13 and the collection is nil, 45 granted in 2011-12 and 42 pending cases, 20 in 2010-11 and 17 pending cases, 35 in 2009-10 and 26 pending cases, 35 cases in 2008-09 and 16 pending cases and 124 in 2007-08 and 86 pending cases.<br /><br />The official, who admitted failure on the part of the civic body, said, notices would be served on erring parties and due action would be taken to collect pending fees. This led to a furore in the meeting, with corporators, cutting across party lines, casting aspersions on the style of functioning of the officials.<br /><br />Corporator H S Nandeesh Preetham sought to know if the civic body was aware of the buildings which have additional floors, apart from evading prorata fee. Mahadevappa, another corporator, said, both underground drainage section and town planning should rectify the lapses.<br /><br />B M Nataraj demanded inspection of all 10,000 odd buildings in the city for violations. He wondered, how could the town planning officials sanction the plan before collecting prorata fee. An official attached to the town planning department clarified, “The plans have been sanctioned following a no objection certificate (NOC) issued by UGD section”.<br /><br />Eventually, MCC Commissioner C G Betsurmath, who intervened, bought peace by promising spot inspections and serving of notice on erring parties.</p>
<p>Close on the heels of State Urban Development Minister Vinaykumar Sorake pulling up Mysuru City Corporation (MCC) officials for failing to mop up revenue, it has emerged that the local body was yet to collect prorata (development fee) from 271 buildings in the city.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Replying to a query of Independent Corporator R Raveendra Kumar (Ward 41) during the council meeting, held here, on Thursday, Executive Engineer of MCC Raju presented a report provided by the Town Planning section, the sole authority to approve building plan, facilitating the licence towards construction works.<br /><br />Quoting the report, the official said, starting from the year 2007-08 up to the current fiscal, a total of 352 building plans (multi-storey structures, including domestic and commercial, under prorata fee structure) were sanctioned. However, barring 81 cases, the fee remains to be collected in the remaining 271 cases.<br /><br />During the current fiscal, 21 licences have been sanctioned and prorata fee remains to be collected. Prior to that, 22 licences were sanctioned in the year 2013-14 and the fee remains to be collected in 13 cases.<br /><br />Accordingly, 50 licences were sanctioned in 2012-13 and the collection is nil, 45 granted in 2011-12 and 42 pending cases, 20 in 2010-11 and 17 pending cases, 35 in 2009-10 and 26 pending cases, 35 cases in 2008-09 and 16 pending cases and 124 in 2007-08 and 86 pending cases.<br /><br />The official, who admitted failure on the part of the civic body, said, notices would be served on erring parties and due action would be taken to collect pending fees. This led to a furore in the meeting, with corporators, cutting across party lines, casting aspersions on the style of functioning of the officials.<br /><br />Corporator H S Nandeesh Preetham sought to know if the civic body was aware of the buildings which have additional floors, apart from evading prorata fee. Mahadevappa, another corporator, said, both underground drainage section and town planning should rectify the lapses.<br /><br />B M Nataraj demanded inspection of all 10,000 odd buildings in the city for violations. He wondered, how could the town planning officials sanction the plan before collecting prorata fee. An official attached to the town planning department clarified, “The plans have been sanctioned following a no objection certificate (NOC) issued by UGD section”.<br /><br />Eventually, MCC Commissioner C G Betsurmath, who intervened, bought peace by promising spot inspections and serving of notice on erring parties.</p>
