Fortune city at Attibele is indeed a very good Layout.I'm not against the entire layout but a part of it on survey no 35,Chikkanhalli village extent 1 acre 33 Guntas was allotted by the government as service inams to Holders of erstwhile village office.There is a court case pending on the schedule Land.As per provisions of section 5(3) of KVOA act the Land is prohibited from alienation for a period of 15 years from 2003-2018.The Land was purchased by Mahidhara projects from real estate sharks during this prohibition period of 2003-2018.Hopefully the court will evict the unauthorised holders and decide the case as per the provisions of Karnataka Land revenue Act.With due respect to Mahidhara projects, I feel its gone unnoticed by them,since the documents and the summary report by Revenue Inspector and Tahsildar while submitting for DC conversion, the report falsely states that it does not come under KVOA act.(Smart work of real estate agents).But amendment 22 of KVOA act came into force since 9/5/2003 which states that the occupancy or the ryotwari patta of the land, as the case may be, re-granted shall not be transferable for a period of fifteen years from the date of commencement of the act.This is my representation to The Tahsildar after reading which any one with Jurisprudence can apply the principle of stare decisis and conclude.There's a board outside most revenue Offices in Bangalore which says that "the Government is with you" , with a picture of farmer tilling the land with an ox.Looks a paradox to me.Finally I want to say that this post is not created to mischaracterise anyone, just a sorry tale of some farmer.
To,
THE TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE – 562 106
From,
Praveen.N
No.66/2A, Tanisha Nilaya
Gundappa Layout
Attibele
Bangalore-562107
sub: (i).Cancellation of
sale deed R.D No: 2295/04-05 DT.22.1.2005 registered to
Smt.Ratnamma w/o Ramaiah at Anekal pertaining to survey
No.35,Chikkanhalli,AttibeleHobli,Anekal Tq. and also the
subsequent
sale transactions.
(ii)Regrant of land to the
daughter of Late. Sri.Munivenkatappa, and Late
smt.Gowramma, i.e, smt.Vasundara Devi.M the legal heir of
Late sri.B.Munivenkatappa.
(iii)Cancellation
of DC conversion order ALN
(A) (A)s.r.69/2006-07 dt.21.01.2010
(iv)Permanent
Injunction on the schedule Land
Respected sir/Madam,
The
schedule property at Survey No.35, Chikkanahalli village,Attibele
Hobli,Anekal Taluk was regranted to my Grandfather Sri.Munivenkatappa
and his cousin Sri.Ramaiah under section 5 of the KVOA act vide
Tahsildar Order bearing No.VOA.EVR 126/80-81 Dt .21.2.1984 measuring
1 acre 33 Guntas and 2 Gunta Karab Land. The original Grant was for
service inam(NEERGANTI) and the regrant was made after the KVOA act
had come into being.
Further
the property was sold to Smt.Ratnamma w/o sri.Ramaiah by the Regrant
Holders on 22.1.2005 in contravention to the Amendment 22 DTD 9th
May 2003 of
Sub-section
(3) of section 5 and section 7A of the Karnataka Village Offices
Abolition Act, 1961 which prohibits transfer of re-granted land "for
a period of fifteen years from the date of regrant made on or after
the date of commencement of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition
(Amendment) Act, 2003" i.e, 9th May 2003 .This amendment applies
to regrant made prior to 2003 as the amendment is prospective in
effect but retroactive in nature. The only exception to the Amendment
is partition among members of Hindu Joint Family and partition in
this context cannot be transfer as “transfer” means a sale ,
gift, exchange, mortgage (with or without possession), lease or any
other transaction not being a partition among members of a family or
a testamentary disposition and includes the creation of a charge or
an agreement to sell, exchange, mortgage or lease or enter into any
other transaction.
Retroactive
Statute such as amendment 22 KVOA Act 2003 though it operates
forwards, it is brought into operation by a characteristic or status
that arose before it was enacted. The characteristic
or status
in the case of amendment 22 KVOA act is the “Prohibition
period of
fifteen years”
which had already expired in the year 1993.Farmers were selling their
land and thereby loosing their lands which were granted to them by
the Government earlier, in order to safeguard the interest of the
farmers the Amendment had come into being.The
requisites for such an action is
“The
re-grant which is awarded and drawn from time antecedent to the
commencement of the amendment i.e 9/May/2003”.
To provide an explanation
for above, the following classic case is quoted.The first celebrated
case in the retroactive category is R Vs. Inhabitants of St.Mary,
Whitechapel10,wherein the Court was called upon to construe Section 2
of the Poor Removal Act, 1846, which provided that “no woman
residing in any parish with her husband at the time of his death
shall be removed from such parish, for twelve calendar months next
after his death, if she so long continues a widow”. In that case it
was sought to remove a widow within twelve months from the date of
the death of her husband who had died prior to the Act came into
force;and it was argued that to apply the Act to such a case was to
construe it retrospectively. In rejecting the contention,Lord Denman,
C.J. made the following clear quoted observations :
“It
was said that the operation of the statute was confined to persons
who had become
widows
after the Act was passed, and that the presumption against a
retrospective statute being intended supported this construction :
but we have before shown that the statute is in its direct operation
prospective, as it relates to future removals only, and that
it is not properly called a retrospective statute because a part of
the requisites for its action is drawn from time antecedent to its
passing.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Insofar
as my case is concerned Smt.Ratnamma has sold the scheduled property
through her GPA holder on 23/5/2011 P.Anjinaya Reddy to P.Pulla Rao
after obtaining DC conversion order ALN (A)(A)s.r.69/2006-07
dt.21.01.2010, by D.C. which also should be void as My family belongs
to scheduled caste Adi karnataka community and the GPA holder is from
General community and he has obtained the DC conversion order through
illegal means. The report from
revenue Inspector and The Tahsildar produced for DC conversion is
taken under RTI wherein it is erroneously stated that it does not
come under KVOA act which shows how The Tahsildar's office was
misused by the real estate Agents.
All the above transactions
are executed after commencement of Amendment 22 KVOA act 2003.The Act
had come into being to protect the interest of the farmers and
safeguard them from malafide interests of Real estate Businessmen who
conceive traps to lure economically weaker families like that of my
Grandfather Late Sri.B.Munivenkatappa who eventually breathed his
last in 2013 under poverty.The Farmers are dying a slow and silent
impoverished death due to drought, debt and Real estate companies.
My mother smt.M.Vasundara
devi.M D/o Late.sri.B.Munivenkatappa is also a farmer and was
cultivating vegetables at 1 Gunta of land gifted by her father at
Attibele since 1994 .
In an an earnest prayer, I
kindly request you to regrant the share of my Grandfather Late
sri.B.Munivenkatappa to my mother smt.M.Vasundara Devi and confer the
occupancy rights in her name and nullify the sale transaction
executed in 2005 and afterwards which is void and is hit by the
provisions of subsection 3 of section 5 KVOA Act.
In view of the above facts I
also kindly request you to cancel the DC conversion order as
mentioned in the subject above and evict the unauthorised occupants
from the schedule property as per subsection 4 section 5 of KVOA Act.
with Kind regards,
Place:Bangalore
Date:27/7/2015 [PRAVEEN.N]
[Grandson of
B.Munivenkatappa]
PH:9449855238
COPY TO: THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER(URBAN)
KANDAYA
BHAVAN,BANGALORE
