`A`Katha – How did you get it ?


There is an investigation being conducted by the authorities regarding the register and transfer of A Katha in BBMP for the buildings which have violated the building by laws and deviated from the sanctioned building plans.  Furthermore, How A Katha was issued to properties on Raja kaluve and Lake bodies is being investigated.

75% of the buildings and houses have deviated from the sanctioned plan and violated the by laws and are legally ineligible to obtain A Katha, but many illegal apartments have A katha.

Before the purchase of the apartment or the site, check the A katha and how it was registered or transferred or issued?

Apartments without Occupancy Certificates have A katha, which is illegal and have obtained it through fraudulent manipulation and misrepresentation of facts, liable to be cancelled automatically.

There are only 36 Occupancy Certificates issued by the BBMP in the last few years and it is startling to know that majority of the apartment complex have A katha without proper documentation and compliance to the prevailing laws.

In Bommanahally Zone, It is said that one housing complex having violated more than 60% to 75% obtained A katha with the connivance of the BBMP Officials, which is under scrutiny.

AE, Many have A Katha and have built houses on the Raja Kaluve and on the periphery of the lake, have defective titles and discrepancy in the survey records.

OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE – BBMP – 2016-17 -TILL DATE


The BBMP has issued only 13 Occupancy Certificates in 2016-17, of which 3 are commercial projects and 10 are residential apartments.

There are few hundred projects which had been completed and few hundred housing apartment projects are underway, but only few builders and the apartments have the MANDATORY OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE.

Between 2011-12 to 20161-7, the BBMP has issued around 300+ Occupancy Certificates and the remaining buildings or projects or apartments DOES NOT HAVE MANDATORY OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE, it means, that buildings or apartments or projects are NOT WORTH BUYING OR OCCUPYING.

The recent floods and the havoc caused by the rains is MAN MADE.  In one of the flood affected areas, the road width is 30 feet and there were several apartment complexes having more than 20+ apartments and the entire narrow road, in bangalore south, J.P.Nagar, has about 400 to 500 apartments, NONE OF THE BUILDINGS HAVE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE AND HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED AS PER THE SANCTIONED BUILDING PLAN AND THEY ARE ILLEGAL, IRREGUALR AND UNAUTHORISED.

HAVE YOU MADE CHANGES OR MODIFIED THE APARTMENT AFTER OBTAINING THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ? NON COMPLIANCE TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES CLEARANCE ? THEN, FACE THE CANCELLATION OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE


The BBMP has finally taking action against the erring apartment/commercial complexes which have changed/modified/put up additional construction after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and violated the conditions laid down while issuing the Occupancy Certificate and have not complied with the statutory requirements of the Department of Fire and Emergency Services and the Occupancy Certificates issued to these occupants might be cancelled or revoked or withdrawn.

It might even affect the row houses and the villas.

It is found that many of the complexes have put up additional structures or put up additional buildings, modified the existing structures, changed the location of the swimming pools, made changes in the parking slots, might draw the ire of the authorities.

NO CHANGE OR MODIFICATION OR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION IS PERMITTED AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE.

APARTMENTS – APARTMENT COMPLEXES – ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR STRUCTURES OR MODIFICATION OR ALTERATION DONE AFTER OBTAINING OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE !!!!


IT HAS COME TO LIGHT THAT SOME OF THE APARTMENTS/APARTMENT COMPLEX/VILLAS/PROJECTS HAVE ILLEGALLY, WITHOUT PROPER SANCTION OR APPROVAL HAVE MADE OR CONSTRUCTED ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS, MODIFIED THE EXISTING STRUCTURES, ALTERED THEM BEYOND RECOGNITION, SHIFTED SOME OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY OR REMOVED SOME OF THE STRUCTURES,  AFTER OBTAINING THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE FROM THE APPROPRIATE PLANNING OR MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY.

SUCH CHANGES/MODIFICATIONS/ADDITIONS/ALTERNATIONS/RENOVATION/SHIFTING WILL RESULT IN THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE, WITHOUT ISSUING A NOTICE.

DEMOLITION, RECOVERY, ENCROACHMENT, A KATHA, B KATHA, E KATHA, NO KATHA ETC


WAY BACK IN 1960`S TO 1980`S, THE PROPERTY PURCHASE WAS USUALLY DONE THROUGH KNOWN PERSONS OR CHANNELS OR NEIGHBOURS AND THERE WAS NOT MUCH OF “HOME LOANS” AT BANGALORE AND DUE TO THE SUDDEN DEVELOPMENT, THE PRICES SPIRALLED AND THE TOUTS STARTED THE MISCHIEF WITH MANIPULATED-FAKE-BOGUS-WRONG REPRESENTATIONS-FACTS OF THE PROPERTY CONCEALED- TO MAKE MORE MONEY.

THE RESULT OF THIS FAKE DOCUMENTATION IS : DEMOLITION & LITIGATION.

IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT EVEN DURING 1960`S AND 1970`S, THAT NOBODY USE TO BUILD ANYTHING NEAR THE LAKES, UNDER ELECTRICITY LINES,NEAR RAJA KALUVE AND EVEN ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES.

THE SPROUTING OF DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS, LAND MAFIA, TOUTS AND FRAUDSTERS PAVED THE WAY FOR ALL THE ILLEGALITIES.

IN 2012/13, DUE TO ABNORMAL DEMAND `B`KATHA CREATED, MOST OF THE PROPERTIES UNDER THIS CATEGORY HAS ITS OWN FLAWS, THE GOVERNMENT, EVOLVED A FOOLPROOF SYSTEM TO ISSUE `E` KATHA – ELECTRONIC MODE KATHA IN FORM NO.9 AND 11A AS PER THE DIRECTIVES OF HIGH COURT, THUS PUTTING AN END TO THE AGE OLD MANUAL KATHA.

EVEN, KATHA`S ARE NOT FOOLPROOF, AS IT IS ISSUED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY, BY SCRUTINISING THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THEM AND IN SOME OF THE CASES, FAKE DOCUMENTS, BOGUS DOCUMENTS, FALSE STATEMENTS, CONTENTS TWISTED DOCUMENTS, FABRICATED DOCUMENTS ARE SUBMITTED, WHICH CANNOT BE OR COULD NOT BE VERIFIED NOT AUTHENTICATED AND KATHA IS ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS.

MANY BUYERS ARE UNDER THE CONCEPT AND IMPRESSION THAT A KATHA DELIVERS THEM GOOD AND MARKETABLE TITLES. IT IS NOT SO. IT HAS TO BE EXAMINED- HOW THE KATHA IS OBTAINED? WHAT ARE THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED? WHETHER APPROPRIATE AND APPLICABLE TAXES, CHARGES AND LEVIES ARE PAID OR NOT? WHETHER, ALL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ARE COMPLIED WITH IT OR NOT?

IN A CASE, AT BELLANDUR(CLOSE TO RING ROAD), IN A TOP END APARTMENT OF A FAMOUS BUILDER, THE RESIDENTS OR THE OWNERS(PRESENT), NOW, ARE PAYING BETTERMENT CHARGES TO GET THE KATHA OF THE PROPERTIES, AS SOME OF THE BANKS ARE DEMANDING THE KATHA AND SOME ARE IN THE PROCESS OF SALES.  THEY CANNOT WAIT FOR THE BUILDER TO PAY –  ARE IN A HURRTY – FORCED TO SHELL DOWN THEIR MONEY TO GET THE KATHA.

`A` KATHA, EC, BANK LOAN, BESCOM CONNECTION, BWSSB CONNECTION,PAYMENT OF TAXES AND TOP BUILDER`S NAME OR GOODWILL DOES NOT CONFER ANY RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST.

SOME OF OUR READERS WERE VERY ANGRY AND VENT OUT THEIR FEELINGS AND VIEWS STATING THAT THEY HAVE REGISTERED SALE DEED, THE TITLES WERE GOOD AND  LEGAL 15 YEARS BACK AND HOW IT IS NOT LEGAL TODAY. IT WAS NEVER LEGAL. EVEN THE SUB-REGISTRAR CANNOT REGISTER SUCH PROPERTIES, WHICH ARE IN REVENUE LANDS. IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT AGRICULTURE LAND CANNOT BE BIFURCATED AND SOLD AND IT IS ILLEGAL.  EVEN THE DC CONVERTED SITE DOES NOT CONFER ANY RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST WITHOUT PROPER APPROVALS FROM THE CONCERNED TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY.  THE DC CONVERSION ORDERS ISSUED WAY BACK IN 1970`S AND 1980`S HAD CONDITIONS LAID IN ITS ORDERS THAT THE PROPERTIES WHICH ARE CONVERTED MUST OBTAIN CLEARANCE AND APPROVALS FROM THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES AND ONLY AFTER OBTAINING SUCH CLEARANCE AND APPROVALS, THE MARKETABLE TITLES ARE CONFERRED.  THE MOST IMPORTANT CONDITION IN EVERY ORDER IS THAT IN THE EVENT OF “NON-COMPLIANCE” OF ANY OF THE CONDITIONS WILL RESULT IN THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF DC CONVERSION ORDER AND ACTION WILL BE INITIATED TO DEMOLISH ANY BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES WHICH HAVE COME UP ON SUCH PROPERTIES AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS SUCH DEMOLITION WILL BE RECOVERED FROM THE OWNER AS REVENUE ARREARS.  THE USE OF SUCH LAND REVERT TO THE ORIGINAL USE, IN CASE OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF ANY OF THE CONDITIONS.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE POWERS TO DEMOLISH SUCH STRUCTURES WITHOUT INTIMATION.

BUT, THE BUYERS IN A BID TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY, HAS MISREPRESENTED THE FACTS BEFORE THE SUB-REGISTRAR AND GET THE DOCUMENTS REGISTERED.  IN THE SAME MANNER, THE KATHA IS ALSO OBTAINED.

NOW THE BUYERS ASK THE QUESTION? HOW DID SUB-REGISTRAR REGISTERED THE DOCUMENT? FACTS ARE TWISTED AND MISREPRESENTED AND THE BUYER/SELLER PAID XXXXX TO THE TOUT/AGENT TO GET THE SALE DEED REGISTERED AND AGAIN GETS THE KATHA IN THE SAME MANNER, GET THE POWER AND WATER CONNECTION AND PAY THE TAXES, FINALLY, WHEN IT IS DEMOLISHED, THE PROPERTY OWNER GRUMBLES AND CRIES.  

TITLES MUST BE CLEAR WITH MARKETABLE TITLES, ALONG WITH AUTHENTIC KATHA AND ALL STATUTORY APPROVALS, LICENSES, CC,OC AND POSSESSION.

IT IS SAD TO NOTE THAT MANY POOR PEOPLE LOST THEIR HOUSES IN THE RECENT DEMOLITION, WERE COMPLAINING THAT THEY HAVE `A` OR `B` KATHA, TAX PAID RECEIPTS, BESCOM CONNECTION, BWSSB CONNECTION AND REGISTERED SALE DEED. 

IT IS VERY SAD THAT THE HOUSES OF POOR ARE DEMOLISHED AND THE RICH GO SCOT FREE WITH LITIGATION FOR COUPLE OF YEARS AND THE NOTORIOUS BUILDER WHO STOLE THE GOVERNMENT LAND AND ROAD IS HAPPILY ROAMING AROUND AND SELLING HIS PROPERTIES.

THE COMMON STATEMENT MADE BY THE TOUTS, AGENTS AND THE BUILDERS IS THAT “THERE IS 90% DEVIATION EVERYWHERE, HAS THE GOVERNMENT GOT THE GUTS TO DEMOLISH? NO CHANCE” YOU CAN HAPPILY BUY AND IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG, WE WILL BE THERE- BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT YOU(THE BUYERS) WILL NOT BE THERE.

HENCE, CONDUCT DUE DILIGENT ENQUIRY AND EXAMINATION INTO ALL THE ASPECTS AND THEN PROCEED TO BUY. NO HURRY. IF YOU HURRY, WORRY WILL TAKE OVER.

DEMOLITION MAN IN ACTION AT SARAKKI LAKE, PUTTENAHALLY, J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g78RTHVhkEw


THE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION HAS INITIATED THE DEMOLITION PROCESS AND IS IN THE PROCESS OF RECOVERING OVER RS2000 CRORE WORTH GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES IN AND AROUND SARAKKI LAKE, BANGALORE.

IT MUST BE NOTED THAT ANOTHER LEADING TOP CREDAI BUILDER IS IN THE NET.  THE SURVEY AND EXAMINATION IS UNDER PROGRESS.  THE BUILDERS ENCROACHMENT AND THE ENCROACHED PORTION WILL BE DEMOLISHED.  EARLIER, THIS BUILDER, ENDANGERED THE SECURITY OF THE NATION BY BUILDING AN HIGH RISE APARTMENT, IN THE VICINITY OF A HIGH SECURITY LAB AT BANGALORE.  IT HAS BECOME AN HABIT OF THIS BUILDER TO ENDANGER THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE AND ALSO THE SECURITY OF THE NATION.  THIS BUILDER`S UNDER CONSTRUCTION APARTMENTS WAS UNDER LITIGATION AT ANEAKL COURT AND EVEN AT THAT STAGE WITH THE HELP OF THE MARKETING TEAM, SOLD THE APARTMENTS. ANOTHER APARTMENT COMPLEX DID NOT HAVE KATHA AND WAS LYING TO ALL THE OCCUPANTS AS WELL AS TO THE BUYERS THAT THEY WOULD GET THE KATHA AND PRODUCED A FAKE DOCUMENT CALLED `SWADEENA PATHRA` FROM VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, BUT THE KAGGALIPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DID NOT HAVE THE FILE AT ALL.  FINALLY MANAGED TO GET SOME KATHA FOR THE ENTIRE OR FULL EXTENT OF THE PROPERTY.

BEWARE!!!

CHECK AND BUY!!!

HURRY WILL MAKE YOU WORRY!!!!

CREDAI OR TOP BUILDER DOES NOT MEAN EVERYTHING IS ALL RIGHT !!!!!!

watch tv9 kannada –

KERC DIRECTS ESCOMS NOT TO INSIST OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE FOR POWER CONNECTIONS


KERC ORDER ON NON INSISTENCE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE FOR POWER CONNECTION

No.: N/9/2015 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, BENGALURU

Dated : 9th April, 2015

  1. Sri H.D. Arun Kumar Member
  2. Sri D.B. Manival Raju Member

Complaint No.1 / 2015

BETWEEN:

1) Vidyuth Grahakara Hitarakshana Vedike, Opposite Town Hall, Hubballi – 580 020.

2) Karnataka State Licenced Electrical Contractors Association, No.33, Avenue Road, Bengaluru – 560 002. ..

COMPLAINANTS [Complainants represented by M/s. Link Legal India Law Services, Advocates] AND: 1) Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, K.R. Circle, Bengaluru – 560 001

2) Mr. Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Managing Director, Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, K.R. Circle, Bengaluru – 560 001

3) Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited, No.924, L.J. Avenue, Commercial Complex, New Kantharaj Urs Road, Mysuru – 570 009 2 Complaint No.1/2015

4) Mr. D. Kiran, Managing Director, Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited, No.924, L.J. Avenue, Commercial Complex, New Kantharaj Urs Road, Mysuru – 570 009

5) Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Limited, Station Road, Kalaburagi – 585 101

6) Mr. M. Mahadev, Managing Director, Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Limited, Station Road, Kalaburagi – 585 101

7) Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited, Navanagar Hubballi – 580 025

8) Mrs. Kushboo Goel Chaudhary, Managing Director, Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited, Navanagar Hubballi – 580 025 .. RESPONDENTS

[Respondents 1,2, 5 & 6 represented by M/s. Justlaw, Advocates, and Respondents 3, 4, 7 & 8 represented by M/s. Induslaw, Advocates] – – – – – – ORDERS

1) This is a complaint filed under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) requesting: (i) To set-aside and quash the impugned communications issued by the Respondents at ANNEXURES – C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5, as illegal and ultra vires of the Act, and the relevant Regulations framed 3 Complaint No.1/2015 thereunder and also the Conditions of Supply (CoS) of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka, approved by this Commission; (ii) To direct the Respondents to strictly comply with the provisions of the Act, and the relevant Regulations and the CoS for supply of electricity; (iii) To take appropriate action against the Respondents for their willful disobedience of the authority of this Commission in issuing the impugned communications.

2) The ultimate effect of the impugned communications, ANNEXURES – C1 to C5, is that: (a) Permanent electricity connection could be given to a residential building, consisting of ground plus two floors, whose total area does not exceed 800 Sq.Metres excluding the parking area, based on the sanctioned plan issued by the Municipal authorities; (b) For all other buildings (other than those buildings mentioned above), exceeding ground plus two floors, permanent electricity connection could be given only after compulsorily obtaining the ‘Occupancy Certificate’ issued by the Municipal authorities. 4 Complaint No.1/2015

3) The Complainants have contended that, with regard to obtaining a permanent supply of electricity, the insistence on production of a sanctioned plan or occupancy certificate issued by the Municipal authorities, as stated in the impugned communications, is in violation of the express provisions of the Act and the relevant Regulations framed thereunder and also the CoS approved by this Commission and that the Distribution Licensees are bound by the provisions of the Act, and the relevant Regulations and the CoS for supply of electricity. Therefore, they have contended that the impugned communications are liable to be setaside.

4) The gist of the Respondents’ contentions is as follows: (a) Clauses 4.02(ii)(a) and 9.01 of the CoS provide that the documents relating to proof of occupancy shall be filed along with the application for supply of electricity in the prescribed Form, and the proof of occupancy can be established only by production of an ‘Occupancy Certificate’ issued by the Municipal authorities. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned communications / circulars are only specifying the requirements of the CoS, and they do not add or delete any provision of the Regulations or the CoS, as sought to be portrayed by the Complainants. Further, they have contended that the Municipal Laws and the Building Bye-laws would govern any construction of building and 5 Complaint No.1/2015 the Municipal Laws would require that in respect of multi-storeyed buildings, an ‘Occupancy Certificate’ has to be obtained before the building can be occupied, and such building cannot be occupied in the absence of an ‘Occupancy Certificate’. Therefore, it is contended that it would be illegal for an owner to either occupy or to allow any other person to occupy a multi-storeyed building without the existence of an ‘Occupancy Certificate’; (b) (i) The present dispute is in the nature of a dispute between a Consumer and a Distribution Licensee and such dispute is not maintainable before this Commission, and the appropriate proceedings would lie before the Consumer Grievance Redresssal Forum (CGRF) concerned; (ii) The present proceedings filed at the behest of the Associations are not maintainable; (iii) The present Complaint filed under Section 142 of the Act, is not maintainable, as the reliefs to be sought under this Section are totally different; (iv) The officials of the Respondents, viz., Respondents 2, 4, 6 and 8, are not necessary or proper parties to the present Complaint, as no 6 Complaint No.1/2015 specific allegations have been made against them in their personal capacity. Therefore, the Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

5) We have heard the oral submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the pleadings and the documents on record. The learned counsel for the Complainants has submitted that he does not press for punishment or penalty against any of the Respondents and that he confines the reliefs only to those mentioned at paragraph 1(i) and 1(ii) above.

6) Based on the above, the following issues would arise for our consideration: (1) Whether the Complainants can maintain the present proceedings before this Commission for claiming any of the reliefs stated in paragraph-1(i) and 1(ii) above? (2) Whether the insistence on production of a Sanctioned Plan / Occupancy Certificate, as contemplated in the impugned communications, is contrary to the existing relevant provisions of law for supply of electricity? (3) What Order? 7 Complaint No.1/2015

7) After considering the submissions of the parties and the relevant provisions of law, our findings on the above issues are as follows :

8) ISSUE No.(1) : (a) In a somewhat similar situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has considered the powers of the Commission to issue general directions against the Licensees to enforce the Conditions of Licence and to comply with the Regulations framed by it. After an analysis of the various provisions of the Act, in paragraphs-16 and 18 of its Judgment cited in (2007) 8 SCC 381 in the case of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission –Vs- Reliance Energy Limited and others (Civil Appeal 2846 of 2006), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus : “16. A comprehensive reading of all these provisions leaves no manner of doubt that the Commission is empowered with all powers right from granting licence and laying down the conditions of licence and to frame regulations and to see that the same are properly enforced and also power to enforce the conditions of licence under sub-section (6) of Section 128.” “18. When the Commission received a spate of complaints from consumers against its licensees / distribution companies that are arbitrarily issuing supplementary / amended bills and charging excess amounts for supply of electricity, it felt persuaded to invoke its general power to supervise the licensees / distribution 8 Complaint No.1/2015 companies and in that connection issued notice dated 3.8.2004. There can be no manner of doubt that the Commission has full power to pull up any of its licensee or distribution company to see that the rules and regulations laid down by the Commission are properly complied with. After all, it is the duty of the Commission under Sections 45(5), 55(2), 57, 62, 86, 128, 181 and other provisions of the Act to ensure that the public is not harassed.” (b) In the present case, the grievances of the Complainants are that the Respondents are insisting upon the production of the Sanctioned Plan / Occupancy Certificate before granting permanent supply of electricity to a building, as stipulated in the impugned communications issued by them, though there is no such provision in the existing relevant Regulations and the CoS. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that this Commission can examine the said question and issue appropriate directions, if need be. (c) The issue involved in the present case is not a dispute between a Consumer and a Distribution Licensee falling under Section 42(5) of the Act. The grievance I against the Licensees’ action, which affects the Consumers as a whole, and therefore, the Commission can examine the grievance to verify whether the Distribution Licensee has been insisting the production of any documents beyond the purview of the provisions of the CoS. It may be true that Section 142 of the Act may not be the appropriate Section under which the Complainants could seek the reliefs mentioned at paragraph-1(i) and 1(ii) above. Merely quoting a wrong 9 Complaint No.1/2015 provision does not bar the Commission from examining the issue involved and passing suitable directions, if the Commission has jurisdiction under other provisions of the Act, to decide the said issue. We note that the Respondents 2, 4, 6 and 8 in this case are not necessary and proper parties, as no specific allegations have been made against them by the Complainants, but this does not affect the maintainability of the Complaint against the others. Hence, the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents regarding the maintainability of the present proceedings, do not survive. Accordingly, Issue No.(1) is answered in the affirmative.

9) ISSUE No.(2) : (a) The learned counsel for the Respondents have contended that the impugned communications are only specifying the existing requirements of the Act and the supply Regulations, including the CoS, and that they are not adding any new provision, or deleting any existing provision, for supply of electricity. (b) Let us now examine whether the Respondents are factually correct in their above contention. Chapter IV of the CoS lays down the conditions to be fulfilled by different categories of Applicants for obtaining electricity supply to their premises. So far as the production of documents relating to proof of ownership, or proof of occupancy, of the premises is concerned, 10 Complaint No.1/2015 the relevant provisions are contained in Clauses 4.02(1) and 9.01 of the CoS. The relevant part of the said provisions are extracted below : “4.02 Application for supply / additional supply of electricity. (1) Any person desirous of availing himself of Power Supply shall comply with the following requirements besides other specific requirements detailed elsewhere under these Conditions. (i) Application for supply of electricity shall be filed with the Distribution Licensee by the owner or occupier of the premises. ……………………………………………………….. (ii) The application dully filled in shall be filed at the local office of the Licensee. Attested true copies or Photostat copies of the following documents as applicable shall be enclosed along with the application. (a) Proof of ownership of the premises or proof of occupancy. (b) …………………………………………………… (c) ……………………………………………………. (d) …………………………………………………… (e) Indemnity Bond if the Applicant is not the owner of the premises. (f) …………………………………………………… (g) …………………………………………………… (iii) to (v) …………………………………………………… 11 Complaint No.1/2015 (2) The Licensee shall verify the application and the enclosed documents at the time of receipt of the Application and shall give an acknowledgment after satisfying himself of the completeness of the application. (3) ………………………………………………………………… . (4) ………………………………………………………………” “4.09 General

  1. i) In case of domestic / non-commercial installations, the consent of the owner is not necessary where the owner is not the occupant of the premises. In such cases proof of occupancy such as valid power of attorney or latest rent paid receipt or valid lease deed shall be produced.
  2. ii) If the Applicant is not the owner of the premises, Indemnity bond shall be produced as per Annex-8.

iii) Unauthorised occupants of the premises shall not be given power supply connection for any purpose. iv) to xii) ……………………………………………………………….” “9.00 APPLICABLE TO COMMERCIAL / RESIDENTIL BUILDING (S)/ COMPLEX (ES) / M.S. BUILDINGS (a) Where Requisitioned load is 35 KW or more or (b) Where the built-up area of building is more than 800 Sq. Mtrs. General procedure for arranging power supply under Clause 4.00 and provisions under K.E.R.C. (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2004 and its amendments from time to time wherever applicable shall be complied with by the Applicant and the Licensee. 12 Complaint No.1/2015 9.01 The Owner/ Promoter / Occupier of the Multi storied Buildings / Complexes shall register the application for power supply in the prescribed form along with the following documents at the jurisdictional Sub-division office of the Licensee duly paying the registration cum processing fee as per Clause 30.01.

(1) Copy of sanctioned plan of the Building / Complex showing the built-up area of building.

(2) Proof of Ownership / GPA / Occupancy.

(3) NOC issued by the Licensee to obtain plan sanction, wherever applicable.

(4) Route sketch to locate the building. NOTE :- i. In the case of existing buildings already having power supply, if sanctioned plan is not available, plan of the building / complex prepared duly showing the built-up area of the entire building and certified by the registered Architect / Civil Engineer and signed by the Applicant shall be furnished. ii. In the case of new Buildings, an Architect’s / Civil Engineer’s Plan as per actual duly showing the built-up area of building certified by Registered Architect / Engineer and signed by the Applicant shall be furnished along with the sanctioned plan, if there is any deviation in construction from the sanctioned plan. iii. The Applicant shall not deviate from the condition of providing space at his premises free of cost for erection of transformer as indicated in the layout plan approved by the Licensee at the time of issue of N.O.C. by the Licensee. iv. In case the Applicant fails to produce the plan of the building / complex prepared duly showing the built-up area of the entire building as stipulated in Paras (i) & (ii) above, the application shall be rejected.” 13 Complaint No.1/2015 (c) As already noted, the effect of the impugned communications issued by the Respondent-Licensees is as follows :

(i) Permanent electricity connection could be given to a residential building, consisting of ground plus two floors, whose total area does not exceed 800 Sq.Metres excluding the parking area, based on the sanctioned plan issued by the Municipal authorities;

(ii) For all other buildings (other than those buildings mentioned above), exceeding ground plus two floors, permanent electricity connection could be given only after compulsorily obtaining the ‘Occupancy Certificate’ issued by the Municipal authorities. (d) Clauses 4.01 to 4.09 of the CoS are general procedures for arranging power supply for all categories of consumers. For different categories of consumers, the other additional specific requirements to be fulfilled, are stated in subsequent conditions, viz., Clauses 5.00 to 12.00 of the CoS. For Commercial / Residential Buildings / Complexes / M.S. Buildings, where the requisitioned load is 35 KW or more, or where the built–up area of the building is more than 800 Sq.Mtrs, Clauses 9.01 to 9.14 of the CoS are applicable, apart from the general procedure stated in Clause 4.00 of the CoS. In respect of buildings not covered under Clause 9.00 of the CoS, Clause 4.00 of the CoS would be applicable. Clause 4.00 of the CoS does 14 Complaint No.1/2015 not specify the production of Sanctioned Plan of the building for supply of electricity. Clause 9.00 of the CoS does not insist on production of Occupancy Certificate, but on the other hand, it insists on production of the Sanctioned Plan of the building for supply of electricity. Further, the Note under Clause 9.01 states the procedure to be followed, if sanctioned plan is not available in the case of the existing buildings already having power supply, and if there is any deviation in construction from the sanctioned plan in the case of a new building. (e) The plain reading of the effect of the impugned communications would establish that they are inconsistent with the existing Clauses 4.00 and 9.00 of the CoS. Therefore, the contention of the Respondents that the impugned communications are only specifying the requirements of the CoS does not hold water. (f) The Respondents have further contended that the ‘proof of occupancy’ of a building, stated in Clauses 4.02 and 9.01 of the CoS, could be established only on production of an ‘Occupancy Certificate’ issued by the Municipal authorities, and in the absence of it, the occupation becomes unauthorized. Further, they have contended that Clause 4.09

(iii) of the CoS specifies that ‘unauthorized occupants’ of the premises shall not be given power supply connection for any purpose. 15 Complaint No.1/2015 (g) Though the above-said contentions of the Respondents appear to be attractive, the close reading of the relevant clauses of the CoS, and the provisions contained in Section 43 of the Act, would make it clear that the interpretation given by the Respondents regarding the requirements of ‘proof of occupancy’ and the meaning of ‘unauthorized occupant’, is not acceptable. (h) The supply of electricity to a premise is governed by Section 43 and other provisions of the Act, and the relevant Regulations framed thereunder. It is not disputed that the CoS has the force of Regulations framed under the Act. The Distribution Licensee is bound by the provisions contained in the CoS for supply of electricity. The CoS nowhere specifies production of an ‘Occupancy Certificate’ issued by the Municipal authorities for obtaining the power supply to a building. Previously, the KEB Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988, governed the supply of electricity to a premise. The said Regulations contained general conditions in Regulation 4.00 for power supply. Regulation 4.05(g) thereof provided for furnishing an ‘Occupancy Certificate’ from the competent authority, wherever applicable, before supplying electricity. That provision was deleted as per the KEB Electricity Supply (Amendment) Regulations, 1998, dated 27.4.1998. Subsequently, revised Regulation 4.05(g) was introduced by the KEB Electricity Supply (Amendment) Regulations, 1998, with effect from 5.11.1998. The revised version of Regulation 4.05(g) stated that, “Furnish the proof of ownership in the form of sale deed or partition deed or khata/ 16 Complaint No.1/2015 succession or heirship certificate or deed of last Will, etc.

An intending consumer who is not the owner of the premises and who is the occupier shall, if so required by the Board, give proof or produce documentary evidence in support of his lawful occupation of the premises like lease deed or power of attorney and also execute an Indemnity Bond indemnifying the Board against any losses on account of disputes arising out of the release of service to the occupant, from the Competent Authority wherever applicable before service.” Therefore, it is quite clear that production of an ‘Occupancy Certificate’ was dispensed with from 27.4.1998 and even in the revised insertion of Regulation 4.05(g), production of an ‘Occupancy Certificate’ was not insisted upon. On the other hand, it provided that occupancy could be supported by producing a lease deed or a power of attorney, etc., and executing an Indemnity Bond as noted above. (j) The KEB Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988, was replaced by the KERC (Electricity Supply and Distribution) Code, 2000-01 with effect from 7.1.2003. Condition 4.00 of the said Code contained general procedure for arranging power supply. Condition 4.01(iii) of the said Code provided that the copies of proof of ownership of the premises or proof of occupancy should be produced by the Applicant apart from other documents, and it also provided that an Indemnity Bond should be executed if the consumer was not the owner of the premises. It did not provide for production of an ‘Occupancy Certificate’ issued by the 17 Complaint No.1/2015 Competent Authority. The said Code was replaced by the present CoS with effect from 17.6.2006. (k) As already noted, the present CoS does not insist on production of an ‘Occupancy Certificate’ issued by the Municipal authorities. The ‘proof of occupancy’ is therefore understood in the sense that the occupier should have authority from the owner to occupy. We have already noted that, where Clause 9.00 of the CoS applies, the Applicant is required to produce a copy of the Sanctioned Plan of the building, but not in other instances. The ‘Occupancy Certificate’ can be issued by the Municipal authorities, if the building is constructed after obtaining the Sanctioned Plan and the Completion Certificate. Therefore, it is clear that CoS has dispensed with the production of ‘Occupancy Certificate’ for proof of occupancy of a building. Therefore, we are of the considered view that ‘proof of occupancy’ of a building, as required under the CoS, is not understood as contemplated under the Municipal Laws and the Building Bye-laws. (l) Clause 4.09(iii) of the CoS indicates that the unauthorized occupants of the premises shall not be given power supply connection for any purpose. CoS has not defined ‘unauthorized occupants’ and it does not specify the nature of such unauthorized occupation. Therefore, we have to interpret ‘unauthorized occupants’ in the context of other Clauses in the CoS. The Clauses 4.02(1)(ii)(e) and 4.09(i)&(ii) of the CoS, which stipulate that, for 18 Complaint No.1/2015 availing electricity supply, an Applicant has to give an Indemnity Bond as per ANNEXURE-8, if he is not the owner of the premises. The specimen of the Indemnity Bond at ANNEXURE-8 of the CoS states that, ‘the Applicant could not obtain the consent of the Owner but produced the proof of occupancy, i.e., valid power of attorney / latest rent paid receipt / registered lease deed, therefore, electricity connection may be given on agreeing to indemnify and keep harmless the Licensee from all the claims whatsoever by the Owner, etc.’ Thus, if the Applicant is unable to provide ‘proof of occupancy’ by way of a lease deed / rent paid receipt / power of attorney, his occupancy will be treated as ‘unauthorized’. In substance, the Applicant should obtain the consent of the Owner, in one or the other way, for occupying the premises; otherwise, the occupation of such person will be treated as ‘unauthorized’. (m) Previously, this Commission had taken the view that it was for the Municipal Authority to enforce the provisions of the Municipalities / Corporation Act and to take action against the unauthorized constructions or deviation of Sanctioned Plan, and the same was not within the domain of the Commission. On the basis of the said view, a request made by the BESCOM to amend the CoS in order to maintain an enabling provision to insist upon the Building Completion Certificate by the local authority before arranging power supply to multi-storeyed buildings, was not entertained by this Commission.

A Writ Petition in W.P.No.15086/2009 (GM-KEB-PIL) filed against the rejection of the request 19 Complaint No.1/2015 of the BESCOM was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, by Order dated 22.6.2009. (n) Electricity is an essential commodity for all the persons. Section 43 of the Act, envisages an universal obligation on the part of the Distribution Licensee to provide electricity on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises. Under the Act, the Commission has been delegated with the powers to frame suitable Regulations for supply of electricity to the consumers, on such terms and conditions.

The CoS is duly framed and approved by this Commission, specifying the terms and conditions for supply of electricity to the consumers. The CoS has the full force and effect of a statute. This Commission alone has the right to amend or modify any of the provisions of the CoS. All persons, who are entitled to get supply of electricity under the terms of the CoS, cannot be denied the supply of electricity, for any extraneous reasons. Therefore, even a person, whose occupation of a building is not as per the provisions of the Municipality Act and Bye-Laws, is entitled for supply of electricity to his premises, if he satisfies the provisions of the CoS. In this way, the object of universal obligation to supply electricity to all persons is met with. Hence, the supply of electricity to an occupant of a building, whose occupation may not be authorized under the Municipality Act and Byelaws, serves a greater cause and does not amount to abetting any illegality. For the above reasons, Issue No.(2) is answered in the affirmative. 20 Complaint No.1/2015 10) ISSUE No.(3) : For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following :

O R D E R

(a) The impugned communications, produced at Annexures– C1 to C5 to the Complaint, shall not be relied on by the Respondent Distribution Licensees in processing of an application for supply of electricity to any premises; and

(b) The Respondent Distribution Licensees shall comply with the relevant Regulations and the Conditions of Supply, while providing supply of electricity to any premises.

Sd/- (H.D. ARUN KUMAR) MEMBER

 Sd/-  (D.B. MANIVAL RAJU) MEMBER