<p>The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has again failed to protect a Civic Amenity (CA) site, despite the Anti-Corruption Bureau’s (ACB) preliminary inquiry proving that BBMP officials illegally issued a khata and plan sanction for it. The CA site is in Amara Jyoti House Building Co-operative Society in Domlur.</p>.<p>Based on a request by the Society, Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had notified certain lands for acquisition, including 4.05 acres of land in survey numbers 68/1 and 68/2. The compensation for it was also disbursed. In the BDA-approved layout plan, an extent of 18 guntas of land in survey number 68/2 was earmarked and shown as CA site for park and road.</p>.<p>A complaint filed by a Domlur resident, B Shivashankar, stated that a developer, Sunil Gupta has begun construction at the site after obtaining a khata and building plan. Shivashankar alleged that the developer made a representation before the BBMP authorities seeking khata and plan sanction for construction of a commercial building by falsely stating that the extent of 18 guntas of land, which is in fact in survey number 68/2, is in survey number 68/1.</p>.<p>Documents reveal that based on a request by the original owner of the land in survey number 68/1, the state government had dropped<br />1.12 acres of land from acquisition.</p>.<p>However, in 1996, special land acquisition officer (SLAO) again acquired 38 guntas of land in survey number 68/1. Subsequently, in 2005 Guramma filed an application seeking khata in her name for the 24 guntas of land in survey number 68/1. When the BBMP sought an opinion, the SLAO in a letter reiterated that the land was part of the acquisition and handed over to the society.</p>.<p>“The BBMP revenue officials on the pretext of seeking a second opinion created a fake note from SLAO saying the land was not part of the acquisition. Based on this letter, the BBMP officials, concealing the fact that the said land falls in survey number 68/2, cleared the sketch and spot inspection and issued a khata in favour of Guramma in 2006,’’ an official said.</p>.<p>Before the khata was issued, Guramma had executed a sale agreement for the land with Sunil Gupta’s wife for a consideration of Rs 5.22 crore. Subsequently, the property was sold between Sunil Gupta and his wife in 2007. </p>.<p>Acting on the complaint by Shivashankar, the BBMP has asked the developer not to continue the construction work and also to produce documents for an inquiry. BBMP Joint Commissioner and DC (east) were not available for a comment.</p>
<p>The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has again failed to protect a Civic Amenity (CA) site, despite the Anti-Corruption Bureau’s (ACB) preliminary inquiry proving that BBMP officials illegally issued a khata and plan sanction for it. The CA site is in Amara Jyoti House Building Co-operative Society in Domlur.</p>.<p>Based on a request by the Society, Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had notified certain lands for acquisition, including 4.05 acres of land in survey numbers 68/1 and 68/2. The compensation for it was also disbursed. In the BDA-approved layout plan, an extent of 18 guntas of land in survey number 68/2 was earmarked and shown as CA site for park and road.</p>.<p>A complaint filed by a Domlur resident, B Shivashankar, stated that a developer, Sunil Gupta has begun construction at the site after obtaining a khata and building plan. Shivashankar alleged that the developer made a representation before the BBMP authorities seeking khata and plan sanction for construction of a commercial building by falsely stating that the extent of 18 guntas of land, which is in fact in survey number 68/2, is in survey number 68/1.</p>.<p>Documents reveal that based on a request by the original owner of the land in survey number 68/1, the state government had dropped<br />1.12 acres of land from acquisition.</p>.<p>However, in 1996, special land acquisition officer (SLAO) again acquired 38 guntas of land in survey number 68/1. Subsequently, in 2005 Guramma filed an application seeking khata in her name for the 24 guntas of land in survey number 68/1. When the BBMP sought an opinion, the SLAO in a letter reiterated that the land was part of the acquisition and handed over to the society.</p>.<p>“The BBMP revenue officials on the pretext of seeking a second opinion created a fake note from SLAO saying the land was not part of the acquisition. Based on this letter, the BBMP officials, concealing the fact that the said land falls in survey number 68/2, cleared the sketch and spot inspection and issued a khata in favour of Guramma in 2006,’’ an official said.</p>.<p>Before the khata was issued, Guramma had executed a sale agreement for the land with Sunil Gupta’s wife for a consideration of Rs 5.22 crore. Subsequently, the property was sold between Sunil Gupta and his wife in 2007. </p>.<p>Acting on the complaint by Shivashankar, the BBMP has asked the developer not to continue the construction work and also to produce documents for an inquiry. BBMP Joint Commissioner and DC (east) were not available for a comment.</p>