Skip to Content

Mysterious series of BBMP ads on a DLF complex

up
66 users have liked.

On 26th April, DLF homes published    this   full page ad in Times of India (I expect in other papers also) announcing the launch of their new project "Westend Heights". Strangely, the ad said "BDA approval obtaned up to 4 floors; bookings in full swing", whereas the pictures accompanying showed far more than 4 floors.

Now, opening bookings without obtaining proper sanctions is undoubtedly a questionable practice. But, one wonders how rampant the practice is in namma Bengaluru. Whatever, on 7th May, BBMP came up with    this    full back page colour ad in TOI cautioning customers against investing in this particular property, stating in addition that the cost of the ad will be recovered from the developer.

Quite a few people I talked to had noticed the ad, and the general consensus during the discussions was that the developer had probably not contributed to the ruling party's election funds.

On 17th May,    this    half page ad by BBMP followed, which interalia stated as follows: " In response to the public notice issued, the developer/ promoter has submitted an application on 15/05/09 for approval of ground + four floors. They have mentioned that for further floors upto 18 floors, they will submit the application after obtaining the required NOC's from all concerned departments. Since the developer/ promoter has now applied for sanction, their application is under consideration. In the meantime, the developer/ promoter has requested the BBMP to bring to the public notice the fact that the developer/ promoter has applied for plan sanction. Hence this public notice".

The consensus amongst the discussion circles now is that DLF has learnt its lessons. They are new to namma Bengaluru - it took them a little time - ashte'

Muralidhar Rao

Comments

irfanulla's picture

But

up
36 users have liked.
Well I have seen and read this too - why DLF ? there are so many illegal constructions going thru the nose of BBMP - (I cannot give any proof though :))

may be this was a very big one. or may be......

and yes who paid for the half page ads that BBMP put on TOI?

RGDS
Irfan


Only few public sector banks are very cautious

up
45 users have liked.

Being in the real estate business, i know only a few public sector banks which do a detailed check of the property, including noticing  violations and the extent there of.

Most private sector banks do not care and are happy to lend albeit with high interest rates.

RBI should make it mandatory for *all* banks to lend only if the project is approved both with a sanctioned plan and with an occupancy certificate.

In addition, it should make it necessary for all developers to adopt ISI norms for calculating carpet area, super built area et al. They should also be strict confirmation with the National Building Code.

thampan's picture

property ads

up
34 users have liked.

does BBMP have authority to mandate the newspapers to print the property ads only if the required permissions have been obtained from BBMP and other authorities? Or make the content say that there is no permission for this building yet

( may seem like license raj, but thought this may be effective in controlling ads of unregulated buildings) 

sanchitnis's picture

Cost of the advt

up
39 users have liked.

 Irfan asked: who paid for the half page ads that BBMP put on TOI?

The same advt had a note at the bottom which said the cost of the advertissement will be recovered from the builder. But I wonder how they will recover it..

Sanjay Chitnis

 
murali772's picture

Yes, Sanjay. I wonder if

up
40 users have liked.

Yes, Sanjay. I wonder if there's a mechanism in BBMP to recover the cost!

And, the last ad by BBMP (half page colour - would easily be a few lakhs) didn't talk of any cost recovery, though it was supposedly placed at DLF's request. Can we also try making a request to BBMP to place an ad on our behalf?

Muralidhar Rao

Muralidhar Rao
murali772's picture

Comment by a friend on a Y-group

up
37 users have liked.

In 2007, the CMC areas around Bangalore and BBMP was formed from BMP - greater Bangalore. Prior to this in areas not under the jurisdiction of BBMP, BDA used to sanction plans.

This even then was strictly not in accordance with law as BDA is a planning body and is not a local body under KMC Act. BDA does not have building bye laws for example.

BBMP has now woken up to the fact that even after the CMC areas have been added to the BBMP jurisdiction BDA is sanctioning plans. There is therefore loss of revenue to BBMP in several ways- official and otherwise. This is therefore a turf battle and BBMP is the clear winner as legally they can sanction plans.

Muralidhar Rao

Muralidhar Rao
murali772's picture

need for changed approaches

up
34 users have liked.

The FIR was registered following a complaint by Nagesh, who alleged that BDA and BBMP officials approved the road widening from 18 metres to 24 to legalize the construction of an apartment complex in Begur, South Bangalore. This was done to increase the permissible floor area ratio of the apartment complex so that the builder could construct 19 floors instead of the permitted four-storey plan.

For the full report in the ToI, click here.

So, all of these had been planned way back in '09 itself, and the officials just kept towing the lines! Big money obviously has had its run all these years.

But, now with a rare committed BMTF chief in place, his actions strongly backed by the newly-vibrant Civil Society, the courts responding to the changed moods, and the whole thing lapped up the ever-vigilant media, can things continue any longer, as before? I would like to believe that it can't.

Beyond all of that, though, isn't such a scenario resulting out of pursuit of growth based on faulty and iniquitous models, in the first place? Shouldn't we then look beyond? Here?

 

Muralidhar Rao
murali772's picture

citizen hood-winking

up
30 users have liked.

The following is the text of a recent post on the subject by Dr Ashwin Mahesh on facebook:

BBMP should stop the practice of giving initial permission for one project, and then giving MODIFIED permission for a project that is many times that size. This is what they did at Swastik junction. The original approval was for a G+2 storey building, but the modified proposal was for G+39 or G+50 or some such thing. It's ridiculous to call a mall or an office tower a 'modification' of a small structure. The modification should not be more than 25% of the original sanction.

The reason this happens is that builders are in a hurry to get their projects started, and to create 'de facto', irreversible things on the ground. Larger projects require permission from many others besides BBMP, but not wanting to wait for all those, builders get started with the pretense that they are building something small. Then the "iga already initial permission kottu ayutthu, Sir" argument kicks in.

The funny thing is that even with G+2 permission, builders will dig a huge pit, where it is obvious to everyone that G+2 is not the final goal. Everyone can see this plainly, except BBMP.


The truth perhaps is that BBMP is not only aware, but even goes about advising the builders to go about things in this fashion in order to avoid the matter attracting the attention of the local residents. As such, instead of citizen consultation before sanction, as generally mandated in such large scale developments, what the BBMP is doing is thrusting fait accompli's behind citizens' backs. How long do we take this?

 

Muralidhar Rao


about seo | blog