Urban News

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Urban Planning

Poor response to land regularisation drive

Print PDF

The Hindu      28.05.2010

Poor response to land regularisation drive

Staff Reporter

Officials receive less than 500 applications


The GO was issued on March 29, 2010

It is proposed to regularise encroachments on irrigation lands also


VIJAYAWADA: There is poor response from people to GO 257 issued by the State government for the benefit of those who want to regularise the land they have encroached upon. Less then 500 applications were submitted in Vijayawada (Urban Tehsildar) office ever since the GO was issued on March 29, 2010. The GO 257 was issued as a sequel to GO 166 for regularisation of encroachments on government lands in the State.

The reason for the poor response seems to be apprehensions amongst the potential beneficiaries about being forced to pay market value at the time of regularisation. The rejection of applications to GO 166 is another reason for the poor response. Yet another reason is that information about the opportunity provided under the GO could not go into people, as the ‘official communication' was sent a month after the GO was issued, sources say.

The situation was no better when the government issued GO 166. As many as 7,000 people applied for regularisation of their sites when the GO was issued in February 2008. A good number of these applications were rejected on various grounds. Of this, barely 1,500 applicants were either eligible for regularisation or had the consent of the departments which held ownership of the lands to be regularised.

There are more than 32,000 assessments in hilly areas in the city. The town planning officials of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (VMC) say that major chunk of the families living on hilly areas were encroachers, while some were in possession of pattas issued some years ago.

The government now proposes to regularise the encroachments on irrigation lands as well. The Opposition parties say that the applications of people living on irrigation lands and canal bunds were rejected in the past.

Residence proof

These applications could be rejected once again on various counts. It will be difficult for those leaving on these lands to provide proof of residence. Also, the committee headed by District Collector, which has been empowered to scrutinise the applications, is likely to reject the applications if the land value is high, says CPI (M) leader Ch. Babu Rao.

Moreover, the regularisation will not be free as being claimed by the government, he says. The registration value and stamp duty were not being kept to a minimum as being demanded and were not within the reach of the BPL people.

The deprecation clause (3 per cent per annum) will be applicable only if the applicant is able to produce proof that he has been living on encroached land. Getting such proof is not easy, as neither property tax is levied on encroachments nor it is easy to get an electricity connection, he says.

Last Updated on Friday, 28 May 2010 05:06
 

Corp engaged in wordplay

Print PDF

The New Indian Express     27.05.2010

Corp engaged in wordplay

 

Carefully-hurled words have more power than a destructive machine. The City Corporation has been proving it over and again. It’s these cautiously crafted ‘notices’ to those responsible for unauthorised constructions in the city that often help them wriggle out of unfavourable situations. 

 An eminent builder group which saw no error in usurping extra land to build a high-rise at Kowdiar has a court order in its favour now. Allegedly due to the loopholes the Corporation’s initial notice to the group had left in it.

 Or how else does a big retail chain function at Pazhavangadi, at a place earmarked for rehabilitating traders at Thakaraparambu for making way for  a flyover there? Only when the business centre commenced its activities did the Corporation raise an objection. The officers, right from the Building Inspectors to the TPO, were put in dock, the members of a Left party engineered protests and pelted a few stones at the name board and Corporation officials cried foul.

 But when the notice was served, the Corporation admonished the retail chain for a deviation that they had made in the original plan! The fact that the entire construction was unauthorised was not mentioned anywhere in that notice. In a few months, everything was forgotten. The shop is now bustling with activity and nobody in the Corporation raises a voice, citing the matter is sub judice. The prospects of the Thakaraparambu flyover, which is in the TCRIP, is now hanging in the balance as there is no space for rehabilitating the traders at Thakaraparambu. How money works!

 A building which was being constructed at Aristo Road, Thampanoor, by a Tamil Nadu-based individual was already halfway up when the Corporation awakened from its slumber. There were allegations then that the notice served was in effect reducing the violation the owners had made.

 At Kunjalamoodu and Beemapally, illegal constructions are many. But the otherwise forbidding Corporation (especially with the poor and the deprived who frequent their offices for building permits) appears frail and shaky to even cast a glance there.

 The information ‘Expresso’ obtained using the Right to Information (RTI)Act says that 173 notices have been served on unauthorised constructions in the city. But the Corporation has not filed any case against the erring buildings before any court. In contrast, 48 cases have been filed against the Corporation in many courts in response to the notices it had served on the buildings.  

 Lately, one of the Council meetings had witnessed a stormy discussion on the dubious role of the Corporation advocates in the matter. Many of the allegations cannot be dismissed as flimsy, though they leave nothing in the way of evidence. The councillors had then alleged that the advocates were favouring the petitioners in many cases against the Corporation. And providing legal advice which was not worth listening to.

 Five advocates appear for the Corporation in various courts, including the Tribunal, Munsiff Court, District Court, High Court and Supreme Court. Two of them have been serving the Corporation since 1997. In the total 1,542 cases that the Corporation has fought over the last five years, except 317 cases, the others have been settled with the onus of resolving the dispute laid again on the shoulders of the local body. Only one case has gone to the Supreme Court.

 In 34 cases, where the verdict was against it, the Corporation has gone for appeal. The cases dismissed by the Tribunal and High Court often ask the Corporation to take new steps to resolve the complaint or to review the complaint and take a time-bound decision respectively. Which means, to point a successful case that they won for the Corporation, is as difficult as the judgement of Paris.

 ‘‘If you take a single case of a violation or unauthorised construction and calculate the amount spent on the advocates for working on it, it would be shocking. Often, the Finance Committee passes huge amounts as counsel fees, but since they are below Rs 1 lakh, the matter does not come to the Council,’’ said a top official of the Corporation.

 The contributions made by building inspectors and revenue officials are noteworthy too. Shell out a few bucks among them and your commercial building or house would fetch a building permit earlier than expected. A builder told this paper, ‘‘The delay these officials cause in the procedures is a huge loss. When what could be done in six months gets delayed by another year, the rate of building materials spiral up. Losses in crores can be avoided by sparing a few lakhs.’’

 What a way to go!

Last Updated on Thursday, 27 May 2010 10:06
 

Rain harvesting deadline: BWSSB seeks extension

Print PDF

Deccan Chronicle      27.05.2010

Rain harvesting deadline: BWSSB seeks extension

May 27th, 2010

May 26: The BWSSB was beseiged by panic calls from people wanting to know if they had more time to install rain water harvesting structures in their homes on Wednesday, a day ahead of the May 27 deadline as they had received no official word on an extension.

Phones at the BWSSB helpdesk at the Karnataka State Council for Science and Technology rang non-stop as most people were afraid of losing their water and sanitary connections for not having made arrangements for RWH as required. Most were relieved when told that they would not invite action as the BWSSB had only three days ago written to the government to amend the law for extending the deadline given.

“We have written to the government to amend the law and until further orders, we will not take any stringent action against those who have not made provision for RWH. In the meanwhile we will intensify our awareness programmes to make people understand that rain water harvesting is a must for the city,” a BWSSB officer said.

RWH became mandatory for buildings on 60/40 sites and for new houses on 30x40 sites under the BWSSB (amendment) Act 2009, which came into effect on August 27 the same year. The new law gave a nine month deadline for the buildings to fall in line. Although the BWSSB issued three rounds of notices and held several awareness programmes, 30,000 residents with BWSSB connections have not yet made provision for rain water harvesting.

The water board says there is no alternative to rain water harvesting as Bengaluru will not have adequate water even after the completion of Cauvery stage 4 phase 2 which wil add another 500mld to its supply by 2011-12. With the city's population having grown, it will still be short of 400mld, it explains.

 


Page 232 of 328