akrama sakrama

please find below text  my version of objections to the akrama sakaram rules.

anyone who feels strongly about this issue is free to use this ,. modify , add etc and send in their own name /organisations name.

Have included an e  mail contact in text of attachment( principal secretary UDD   ).

but of course the old world of "acknowldged hard copy " is best if one has to use the document for future legal actions. 

as i mentioned if anyone feels strongly about it , at least bung in an objection.

and 31st is last date for objections.

cheers ,

vijayan

To,

The Principal Secretary to Government

Urban Development Department,

Vikasa Soudha

Bangalore 56001

prs-ud@karnataka.gov.in

 Subject: Objections filed under:

Notification    No: UDD 566 MyAPRa 2013, Bangalore, Dated 31/12/2013

With reference to the above notification please find below detailed objections to the draft of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Regulation of Unauthorised Development or Construction) Rules 2013..

It is expected that these objections are taken seriously and reasons communicated in the public domain for any of the objections are not incorporated   in the final rules.

A)Overall legality of the scheme

1.The Metropolitan planning committee (MPC) having been established, the planning of the city, including land use, must be routed through this statutory body, and cannot be passed by the State government independently.

2. The matter at hand is subjudice in the High Court of Karnataka, via various Public Interest litigations .The High Court in an interim judgement had stayed collection of fees under this scheme. No effort has been made by the Government of Karnataka to either seek clarifications of the high court or vacate interim orders

3. The lack of punitive measures against officials is a wanton omission. Regularising violations must go hand-in-hand with this. The act allowed for this. Rules need to necessarily incorporate all sections of the scheme and cannot be cherry picked.

4 Violations of building plans cause hardship to neighbours, and the government has no locus standi to excuse this on their behalf. Their consent must be sought. This is a fundamental right and cannot be overlooked..

5. The entire masterplan /comprehensive development plan (CDP) processes, either in the past or future is nullified by this scheme. Regularisation of the kind proposed is the anti-thesis of a planned city/town.

6. The government has never shown good faith in ending illegal constructions. Each iteration of its effort has led to a new 'cut-off' date. No effort has been made on the ground or in terms of process after the first proposal and introduction of Sec 76FF .It can be decoded that this is just a money making scheme without any regard to a planned city , which is the tenant of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act.

B)    Specific items of the rules

1.     Regularisation fees are to be borne by the owner of the property. In the case of apartments this essentially lets the builder, who would be the principal party that has caused an illegality, goes scot free. The scheme as envisaged lets big violators and builders off the hook.

 2. Levels of “allowed violations” are arbitrary and without data backing. No effort has been done to either establish levels of violations or extents of violations.

3. The rules and act are very vague of action that would be taken against buildings that are not eligible for regularisation. There has been nothing stopping the government authorities, to take action under law against large scale violators. This again demonstrates that the scheme is designed to just collect money, without emphasis on major violators.

4. The process of scrutinising and allowing violations is faulty. The same officials who have allowed these illegalities to occur are the ones entrusted to condone /sanction violations. This severely compromises the integrity of the process.

5, There is a lack of transparency in the scrutiny process. All applications for regularisation should be in public domain with all details. It should be open to the general public for scrutiny and for comments from the neighbourhood as to the veracity of disclosed details in the application.

6. The parameters for allowing violations are faulty. The requirement of adequate parking, laid down by law, is not considered. Therefore a building exceeding FAR or with zonal violations can be regularised irrespective of whether the building has adequate parking. This essentially compromises on public property and roads, where such parking will occur. Elsewhere in the rules, violations in use of basement as per plans are not allowed (which is mostly for parking).The rules are inconsistent for building without basements sanctioned for parking.

7. The fees are the same for a violator who has violated recently, to someone who has enjoyed the fruits of violations for many years. This is illogical.