Urban News

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Urban Planning

GHMC won’t raze illegal buildings

E-mail Print PDF

Deccan Chronicle      03.01.2011

GHMC won’t raze illegal buildings

January 3rd, 2011

an. 2: The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation may well decide not to bulldoze unauthorised buildings that have not been ‘regularised’ under the Building Penalisation Sch-eme that ended on December 31, 2010.

Instead, the civic body wants to fill its empty coffers by levying heavy penalties on the buildings that are illegal or have flouted building rules. It thus hopes to raise more than Rs 50 crore on over 30,000 applications that are pending under the BPS.

Another 40,000 applications were deemed ineligible for the BPS by GHMC officials as the buildings had come up within the Full Tank levels of water bodies, or on Wakf, endowment, government, ceiling, assigned or notary lands.

Those who have already availed of the BPS and got their properties regularised, have objected to the GHMC’s reluctance to demolish the properties. They say that if the properties are not demolished, the 1.32 lakh applicants who paid in all Rs 677 crore towards penalisation char-ges and got their buildings regularised within the stipulated time, will feel cheated. Besides, if the properties are not demolished, it will send a wrong message and construction of unauthorised buildings will increase.



GHMC admits it cannot control illegal buildings

E-mail Print PDF

Deccan Chronicle        31.12.2010

GHMC admits it cannot control illegal buildings

December 31st, 2010

Dec. 30: The AP High Court on Thursday observed that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has failed to curb illegal construction within its limits. Justice Noushad Ali made this observation after the counsel for the GHMC submitted that the corporation did not have adequate staff to stop illegal construction and the government was not helping the corporation. The counsel said the civic body was not in a position to stop illegal constructions.

The judge was dealing with two petitions filed against the illegal constructions that are going on in various parts of twin cities. The judge while recording the submission of the counsel said, “If that is the stand taken, this court is bound to be observe that the GHMC has failed to implement the law as required by them.”

The judge pointed out, “Everyday a number of cases are being listed before this court complaining that illegal constructions are going on everywhere in the city, not only small buildings but also big complexes.”

The judge said, “This court observed that despite filing representations before the authorities concerned, no action is being taken. Hence this court is bound to observe that such inaction of the officers appears to be deliberate.”

In one petition, the judge granted stay on a construction undertaken by Nava Bharath Ventures on Road No. 14 of Banjara Hills and directed the GHMC to produce the records pertaining to the sanctioned plan of Nava Bharath and posted the case for hearing after four weeks.

Compromise on Nizam wealth

A division bench comprising Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy and Justice P. Durga Prasad on Thursday put an end to a 15-year-old legal battle among the legal heirs of late Nizam on sharing property worth `14 crore after they entered into a compromise on it.

About 130 legal heirs including children and grandchildren of the late Nizam filed a suit with regard to sharing the property in 1995 and later they filed an appeal in 2000 against the orders passed in the suit. However, they compromised and filed a memo of compromise before the bench and the bench recorded it and allowed them to share the property among themselves.

The Nizam had created corpus fund of nearly `200 crore and executed the settlement deed. Disputes arose on how this money should be shared with some of the sons and daughters who died issueless.

Input tax credit order upheld

A division bench comprising Justice V.V.S. Rao and Justice Ramesh Ranganathan on Thursday upheld the decision of the state in withdrawing the input tax credit to companies dealing with coal, naphtha and natural gas. The bench disposed of 59 writ petitions filed by Asian Peroxide Limited, Nellore, and others challenging the action of the state.

Last Updated on Friday, 31 December 2010 07:00

Pay a fee to get your land khata

E-mail Print PDF

Deccan Chronicle       30.12.2010

Pay a fee to get your land khata

December 30th, 2010

Dec. 29: In a major relief to over five lakh site owners in the city, the BBMP council on Wednesday approved the recommendations for the amendment of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

This enables the site owners to obtain ‘khata’ by paying an ‘improvement’ fee and conversion fee to the BBMP. Amidst acrimonious scenes, the ruling BJP also approved the collection of ‘improvement’ or development fee from the revenue site owners. The opposition Congress and JD(S) objected to this and demanded that the BJP bring down the ‘improvement’ fee, saying it was exorbitant.

According to the chairman of the BBMP committee on Taxation and Finance P. N. Sadashiva, if the recommendations are approved, instead of waiting for the Sakrama scheme, the property owners could get ‘khata’ for those properties which have been converted for non-agricultural purposes from the competent authority -- deputy commissioner (urban).

The permanent ‘khata’ will help property owners obtain the building plan from the BBMP. It will also enable them to avail of loans from financial institutions for building houses.

The issue of ‘khata’ had been stopped for those layouts which were formed without land conversion and approval from the competent planning authorities, like BDA, Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA) and Bengaluru International Airport Area Planning Authority (BIAAPA).

If the amendment comes through, the BBMP could earn revenue to the tune of at least Rs 500 crore. The amendment will help the BBMP to collect both conversion fee and ‘betterment’ fee. However, the BBMP is expected to remit the conversion fee to the government through the deputy commission (urban), which is the competent authority for land conversion.

The ‘betterment’ fee would be collected from all the property owners for providing them with civic amenities like roads, drains and sanitary connections. But all this does not necessarily mean that their property is regularised, clarified Mr Sadashiva.

Those who pay the improvement fee, will be given ‘B khata,’ which helps the BBMP to collect property tax, he said.


Page 99 of 323