AKRAMA – SAKRAMA UPDATE


The Government may notify the scheme with complete details in a fortnight, making changes of the date from which the notification will come into effect.

Majority of the B kathas will be regularised.  But, Majority of the buildings which have large scale violation beyond the prescribed limits CANNOT BE REGULARISED, even if they have A katha, obtained by misrepresentation of facts and false details.

But, the scheme will be challenged in the Supreme Court by the interested parties.

 

Encroachments in Bangalore East Taluk might begin soon – MAJA TALKIES TRUE STORIES


Encroachments of raja kaluve, secondary channel and territory channels might be cleared in three villages of K.R.Puram, Bangalore East Taluk, abutting Hebbal.

It is learnt that revenue sketches have been morphed or fabricated or misrepresented (Fake-Bogus-Fabricated) and obtained katha and building plan in thanisandra, hennur, rachenahally and surrounding villages.

There are many DC Converted sites and Revenue sites without proper survey, revenue and title records.

There are too many sites and houses on BDA acquired layouts in 15 villages and in xxxxxxxxx village alone in few survey numbers of Mufatkaval, about 70 acres (kahrab) have been under dispute and there are too many claimants with original owners along with revenue site owners.

Everywhere, there is encroachment of BDA land, Revenue land, illegal sale of agricultural land and encroachment of Raja Kaluve and the lake.

Maja Talkies True Story 

15 villages notified by the authority and the sites of the poorest of the poor in these villages worth crores

The owners and the claimants are All Poor crorepatis and bought it with hardly earned money.        ( in lakhs only) and are quoting Rs.5,000/- per square feet to Rs.7,000/- per square feet of BDA (acquired) (some have BDA NOC- some are original and many are fake or bogus) property and have formed associations to protect their properties and fight cases in courts.

In this zone, in one of the parallel roads to main road,  the poor have bought the sites (DC Converted sites) but no ROADS and the price they bought was Rs.300/- per square feet and these poor wants Rs.3,000/- per square feet (NOW) for their illegal sites without road approach and are very wise, honest, humble, hard working and are not rigid and GREEDY AT ALL and require/demand the Government to provide FREE water, lighting, road and other infrastructure at the COST OF THE HONEST, LAW ABIDING AND TAX PAYING CITIZEN.

The real poor is languishing in one corner of Bangalore, tired, weak, fed up and works hard day and night to have two square meals and not bothered about the sites or houses.

 

 

A NEWS REPORT ON THE REVENUE SITES – BE CAREFUL


A NEWS REPORT ON REVENUE SITES –  WATCH OUT

Last week, the High Court quashed the government orders of 2009 barring registration of Revenue sites/ properties.

Though the State government allowed registration of B Khata properties in the city and e-Khata properties in gramthana areas in December 2013, unapproved layouts and those in the green belt, on the city’s outskirts were not given e-khata, and hence were not registered.

Such property holders in unapproved layouts, green belts and non-converted land can now get their properties legally registered, without the requirement of e-khata or any such additional document.

While there is no official statistic on the number of such revenue pockets in the city, estimates vary from 50,000 sites to over one lakh plots, which are expected to flood the realty market.

The HC quashed the 2009 order saying sub-registrars have no powers to seek any document not stipulated under the Stamps and Registration Act.

However, a former revenue official involved with the 2009 orders said that they were promulgated to prevent mushrooming of unauthorised revenue pockets, especially in the green belt.

The problem is most severe in the newly added 110 villages and other outlying areas of the city, especially in the BDA area outside BBMP jurisdiction,  “Many private layouts have come up even in the green zones in these areas. These have neither got a conversion of land use nor are their layout plans approved,” he said.

But now, it would be tough to control mushrooming of unauthorised revenue pockets, the revenue official said. “Registration doesn’t guarantee title of a property.

This means the buyers will be taken for a ride by revenue layout developers, cheating them with illegal sites, buildings violating bylaws, which may affect the buyer at a later date,” the official said.

 

Revenue Sites –


The recent High Court pronouncements on the registration of Revenue Sites has not validated nor declared that the revenue sites are LEGAL.

It is said that the Sub-Registrars cannot assume the power of a judge or a court and dictate terms for the registration.

The Sub-Registrars cannot refuse the registration on the grounds that there is violation certain other local statutes or laws.

In the event of any such violations, there will be a penal clause and if by transfer of land , there is an infraction of any of the local laws, then the particular laws have the machinery for invalidating the transfer and may also contain penal provisions in that regard.

The critical portion of the judgement is as under:

It is reiterated that the Registration Act does not concern itself with the nature of transfer of alienation of properties, which are prohibited under other laws.  It only states what documents pertaining to certain transactions, which have to be registered compulsorily when they relate to immovable property and with regard to certain other transactions, which need not be registered.  The Act does not concern itself with the transactions, but relate to documents concerning transactions, which have to be registered compulsorily, in which event, provisions of the Act would have to complies with by the parties.  By the Impugned Circular, The Sub-Registrar can in no way prevent a document pertaining to a transaction, which is prohibited under various laws from being registered.  Once Those Transactions have taken place, the document pertaining to the transactions are registered under the Act, When the requirements of the Act are complied with.  Unless the document pertaining to the transaction is registered, the transaction under Various Acts, which are prohibited, namely transfer of land by sale etc., would not become invalid, as it is only when the document pertaining to the transaction is registered would result in the completion of the transaction by transfer of title and buy conveyance.  Therefore merely on an apprehension that a particular transaction may be prohibited under particular enactment, the Sub-Registrar cannot prohibit the registration of the document pertaining to the said transaction.  Rather it is only on completion of the transaction by the registration wherever registration is compulsory, that the transaction, prohibited under a particular law, would become null and void.  Therefore, even prior to the registration of document pertaining to ta transaction, it cannot be presumed that the transaction is prohibited under an enactment and thus, refuse registration of the document.  As already stated, a transaction is not complete until the document pertaining to a transaction is registered.  The Sub-registrar cannot assume the powers of a court or an authority to come to a conclusion that the transaction is prohibited under a particular enactment and thereby prohibit its registration. Then it would be a case of “putting the cart before the horse”.

Seconldy, Annexure -I of the impugned Circular prescribes the list of documents, which have to be produced along with documents of transfer at the time of registration.  Even the non-production of such documents ( Other than those documents prescribed under the Registration Act, 1908) cannot in any way prevent registration of transactions, which are null and void under certain Acts.  even if an affidavit is given by the transferor and transferee of land to the effect that there is no violation of any statute in the transfer of land, the said affidavit would not in any way be of any assistance when subsequently it is discovered that there was in fact an infraction of any of the provisions of a statute when the transfer of land took place.  Further, at the time of registration of documents pertaining to transfer of land, the Sub-Registrar cannot hold an enquiry as to whether any of the statutes or local laws have been violated.  If by transfer of land, there is an infraction of any of the local laws, then the particular laws have the machinery for invalidating the transfer and may also contain penal provisions in that regard.  Therefore, prior to the registration of the document, the transaction relating to the transfer of land being incomplete, the Sub – Registrar at that stage cannot prevent the transaction pertaining to transfer of land being completed on the assumption that there may be a violation of any of the local laws.

 

 

HIGH COURT PERMITS THE REGISTRATION OF REVENUE SITES AND GRAMATHANA SITES


Revenue Sites Registration cannot be rejected or refused by the Sub-Registrars

       A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee and Justice B.V. Nagarathna passed the order while allowing petitions filed by C. Ramachar and others, who had questioned the circulars issued by the government on April 9, 2009 and April 3, 2012 banning registration of certain types of properties,(Revenue Sites) including revenue sites and gramathana sites, and imposing conditions for registration.

       The Karnataka High Court on Friday declared that a sub-registrar cannot assume the powers of a court or an authority to come to the conclusion that a transaction is prohibited under a particular enactment and thereby prohibit its registration.  Terming that the government has no power to deny registration of documents listed under Registration Act as the apex court in 2005 had set aside such laws enacted by many States, including Karnataka, the Bench said that there is machinery for invalidating the transfer of immovable properties in violation of the law, including penal provisions under different laws.

PROPOSE TO BUY AN APARTMENT OR A SITE ? THINK, NOT ONCE, SEVERAL TIMES


Mr.Avinashi`s mail to property buyers.

Be careful about the details, brochures, names of the builders or the sellers, approvals, construction quality and finally the price.

80% of the apartment buyers cannot openly express their worry and anguish, as they had expected heaven on earth while buying the apartment, once bought, the hell drops down, without any notice or intimation.  Many property buyers are not aware of what they bought, till they get the court notice or the seepage in the building with bonus like charges and expenses.

I bought a site in 2004, never knew it was a panchayat or a revenue site. 2005 is a year, which saw the setback, as the High Court Of Karnataka has banned the sale of REVENUE SITES.  Till date, thousands of sites remain unsold or under developed like mine, but it is still being sold with fake or fabricated or forged or obtained through misrepresentation of facts and registered.

I work for 8 to 10 hours honestly and earn my bread and support my family.  In a bid to have my own little hut, I bought a site, But, due to my ignorance or foolishness, I am suffering, as I had bought an illegal property (as always published by ecopack). Whom to blame? The system, The seller ? Myself? The Subregister? The Agent? The Panchayat? What use to blame it?  I have lost money, no house, loans and free blood pressure and above all, chiding by friends and family members, make me angry.  What to do now?  Wait for Akrama Sakrama ? How long? Why not courts understand the plight of people like me?

Ever since, 2005, till date, people are buying the sites, braving the court orders, with fake E katha doing rounds.  In some cases, the DC Conversion orders are also fake and in some cases, specially on sarjapur road, the layout plan is also forged or manipulated.

Do not jump into buying without proper verification, even for the second sale or resale.

CHECK AND RE CHECK AND BUY.