What did SM Krishna write about Deve Gowda? Friday, August 13 2004 20:34 Hrs (IST)
From,
S M Krishna, 12th August 2004
To,
Mr. Dharam Singh
Hon'ble Chief Minister
Government of Karnataka
Dear Mr. Dharam Singh,
Over the past few days the newspapers and television channels are extensively reporting the contents of the 29-page letter Sri H D Deve Gowda is reported to have written to you. In this letter wild and baseless allegations, which are nothing but character assassination are being made. Not only this Sri Deve Gowda has been speaking in public where he has been repeating these allegations.
All these allegations were raised in the recently concluded Legislature Session and effectively replied to. In spite of this Sri Deve Gowda has sought to sensationalise all this. This is a direct attack on the Government that I led, the Bangalore Development Authority portfolio, which I held, Sri Jayakar Jerome, the Commissioner during the relevant period and me personally, and therefore it is imperative that I write to you.
When I assumed office in October of 1999, there was enough and more material for me to order enquiries not only into the B.D.A. but other departments also. I believed that this was not necessary as only a vindictive mind would indulge in such destructive activity.
As the Public Works Minister in my Government you are aware of what I am referring to i.e. the irregularities in the UKP pointed out by the Public Estimates Committee of the Legislature, which was headed by Sri Vyjanath Patil. I do not wish to go into the notorious details of that Report. Instead I believed that with the mandate given to us we should build and not destroy. This we did and that explains our victory in both the BMP and Assembly elections.
Take the case of the Outer Ring Road from Hosur Road to Tumkur Road, via Iblur, Varthur, KR Puram, Hebbal and BEL Circle. This stretch of the Outer Ring Road was divided into various packages and tendered out in June of 1998. You will see below the various packages and the abnormally high tender percentage in each case. In spite of this my strict instructions were to complete the Outer Ring Road, which was done in July of 2000.
It would be very interesting to know why the percentages were so high as the table above indicates. The BDA through Resolution No. 28/98 at it's meeting on 27-2-98 internally and not publicly pre-qualified eight agencies for construction of the Outer Ring Road. The tender was not throw open publicly nor were the pre-qualification criteria made public. Subsequently IRCON was also included as they are a Government of India organization. Only the nine contractors who were thus pre-qualified were invited to participate in the tender. The contractors were:-
Ansal Properties and Industries. Oriental Structural Engineers. KMC Constructions. Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited. Prakash Building Associates. K Raghava Reddy. Progressive Constructions. East Coast Construction Industries Limited. Ircon.
As against this, the open public and pre-qualification criteria both technical and financial that the BDA introduced showed immediate results. The Varthur Underpass was put to tender on 19-2-2000 at a cost of Rs 4.30 crores. The work was awarded to the successful bidder JMC Constructions at 2.56% below the estimate. Facts speak for themselves.
While on the subject of the Outer Ring Road, Sri Deve Gowda claims that he raised a loan from HUDCO and constructed 55 kms of the Outer Ring Road and stated that "crores has been looted" for constructing just a small stretch of just 6 to 7 kms of the Outer Ring Road.
Sri Deve Gowda can be forgiven for his ignorance of Bangalore's topography. Sri Deve Gowda can take credit for the Intermediate Ring Road connecting Indira Nagar and Koramangala and also for the Outer Ring Road from Hosur Road to Mysore Road via BTM and JP Nagar. The Outer Ring Road from Hosur Road to Mysore road via Iblur, Varthur, KR Puram, Hebbal, Tumkur Road, Magadi Road and Mysore Road is an achievement of my Government and is a distance of approximately 53 kms. The expenditure figures are also very clear:-
Sri H.D. Deve Gowda Rs 10.16 crores Sri J.H. Patel Rs 50.00 crores Sri S.M. Krishna Rs 194.00 crores
The awarding of the work of construction of the Outer Ring Road from Tumkur Road to Magadi Road was not done by my Government but by the previous Government. The BDA through a resolution at it's meeting on 24-5-99 recommended that this work be directly entrusted to M/s IRCON at a cost of Rs 25.38 crores which was 43% above the estimate.
After issue of a Government Order, work was entrusted to M/s IRCON. When this was brought to my notice I stayed the entire proceedings. However to avoid legal complications and to honour the decision of the predecessor Government, I gave the green signal. In this process a fresh agreement was executed and the cost reduced to Rs 23.22 crores and the completion reduced from 18 months to just 12 months This is a dual carriageway six lane road and has Bangalore's longest bridge. Sri Deve Gowda's allegation is devoid of either truth or fact.
Sri Deve Gowda's lie in respect of the Outer Ring Road from Magadi Road to Mysore Road also requires to be exposed. This stretch of the Outer Ring Road was put to tender in 2001 at an estimated cost of Rs 16.86 crores. This work was allotted to the successful bidder at 5.28% of the estimate. Works on the Outer Ring Road awarded in 2001 have gone below the estimate whereas works on the Outer Ring Road awarded in 1998 have gone 40% above the estimate. Need anything more be said? The Road has been opened to traffic in 2002 and is heavily used. It is time Sri Deve Gowda undertook a guided tour of the entire Outer Ring Road, which would be a revelation to him, of course, if he is honest.
The allegation is that the Hebbal Interchange is unnecessary and a simple Underpass like the one at Yeshwantpur would have been sufficient. The entire concept and design was done by the Rail India Technical and Economic Services Ltd, (RITES) a Govt. of India Undertaking. An Underpass is not feasible because of the Salem Railway Line and the Hebbal Lake, which would have led to constant seepage and flooding, in fact the Mekhri Circle Underpass and the Hebbal Interchange are part of an integrated traffic plan visualized more than ten years back. When technical experts have ruled out the feasibility of an Underpass to allege "looting of crores of rupees" is despicable. In fact what is interesting is a comparative cost of flyovers, which makes a startling disclosure in respect of the Sirsi Circle Flyover. Let the facts speak:-
Beneginahalli tendered in 1999 cost Rs 12,283 per square meter. Whitefield tendered in 2000 cost Rs 10,538 per square meter. Hebbal tendered in 2001 cost Rs 15,349 per square meter. Central Silk Board tendered in 2002 cost Rs 11,500 per square meter. SIRSI CIRCLE TENDERED IN 1996 COST Rs 33,000 PER SQUARE METER.
The Hebbal Interchange is the pride of India. It has loops at five different levels and is the longest in the country apart from being the only one of it's kind. Engineers from all over the country apart from faculty and students of reputed engineering colleges are regular visitors to understand this unique engineering feat. Which Government in this country laid the foundation stone and also inaugurated a project of such magnitude and engineering challenges during its term in office. I am proud of this achievement.
The very same technology and engineering methodology that was used for the construction of the Sirsi Circle Flyover was used at Hebbal. In fact Hebbal is more complicated because of the loops and curvatures and the nature of the soil in view of the Hebbal Lake and it's achkut In spite of all this and the steep increase in the cost of materials as also the labour component SIRSI CIRCLE TENDERED IN 1996 HAS COST RS 33,000 PER SQUARE METER, WHEREAS HEBBAL TENDERED IN 2001 HAS COST RS 15,349 PER SQUARE METER. Need anything more be said?
Another vague and baseless allegation is that in the pretext of forming new layouts, crores of rupees has been looted by awarding contracts to select individuals. This allegation is based on presumptions and assumptions. During the tenure of my Government over 75,000 new sites where formed, which includes 50,000 allotted to the general public, corner sites and incentive sites to land losers, as against just 3400 sites allotted during the previous ten year period.
I am unable to understand how Sri Deve Gowda who did not allot a single site to the general public during his tenure has the temerity to raise this issue. In the model adopted by the BDA after my Government assumed office the cycle time given to contractors for layout works was just between 30 to 60 days as against works lingering for years together in the past.
Nobody will deny the fact that quality work can be executed only by qualified and experienced contractors. The KR Market in the City, the BMP Quarters in Ejipura and the houses constructed by the KHB at Yelahanka apart from elsewhere are prime examples of work being entrusted to inexperienced and incompetent contractors.
The BDA was no exception to this. In older layouts work entrusted to inexperienced and incompetent contractors resulted in time and cost overruns, unauthorized constructions coming up due to delay in execution of works, overlapping of works resulting very often in double measurement and double payment. In fact works in the HSR Layout where sites were allotted in 1986 were completed only during the time of my Government. Not to repeat such mistakes but to ensure that the general public got a quality product, the BDA laid down certain minimum technical and financial qualifications for contractors to be eligible to apply, for example, actual work experience in layout formation, end user certificate, minimum turnover in the previous periods, access to machinery and manpower etc.
The tendering method adopted was in absolute conformity with the provisions of the Transparency Act. Tenders were received in two separate covers, one containing the technical bid and the other containing the financial bid. The technical bids were publicly opened and compared with the technical qualifications prescribed.
Thereafter, the financial bids of only those who were technically qualified were opened. This meant that among all those technically qualified, work was awarded to the lowest tenderer. What system can be more transparent and in the interest of the BDA and the general public than this? The sorry state of affairs in the Engineering Department is what prompted the BDA to take up a series of reforms, which brooked no delay.
The BDA Contractors Association Office located in the BDA Head Office was removed as it was thought that their presence there was not healthy, correct and in the best traditions of transparency and fair-play. Awarding works on piece rate was stopped. Estimates were being made in pieces with costs less than one lakh and being given on nomination without EMD and without sustainable and enforceable agreements. Piece-work had become unmanageable and resulted in the absence of quality and quantity checks. Piece works were replaced by tenders. Big contracts were being offered to a set of select contractors in the guise of pre-qualification.
High premiums were being quoted with tender percentage ranging from 30% to 50%. With the introduction of the two cover system, which I have mentioned above and the pre-qualification criteria being made public as part of the Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) the tender percentage came down to reasonable levels ranging from 0% to 10%. All tender notifications received wide publicity in all the print media apart from Notice Boards and the Gazette.
Recognizing the ills plaguing the engineering works in Government, I take legitimate pride in the fact that it was my Government that enacted the Transparency Act.
Sri Deve Gowda claims that had the pre-qualification criteria not been prescribed for layout works, a whole number of contractors would have participated and as a result all layout works would have gone 20% below the estimate. Sri Deve Gowda must name the contractors who were eligible as per the criteria in the NIT and were disqualified. This is a mere statement not based on fact or reality. It is only a surmise, a false presumption, a conjecture and theoretical and therefore merits no response. The best response is the 50,000 successful site allottees themselves.
The baseless and wild allegations of Sri Deve Gowda are that pre-qualification norms were tailored made to suit a few favoured contractors, biased, was also revised and ensured that crores of rupees was looted. Sri Deve Gowda's ignorance is astounding or is it his love and loyalty to piece rate contractors. The very allegations made by Sri Deve Gowda were made by certain affected contractors in the form of Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon'ble High Court by it's order dated 20th September 2001 in Writ Petition Nos 34427-430 of 2001 (B.D.A.) was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petitions with costs and uphold the action of the B.D.A. Let me excerpt just parts of this 20 page order.
"There is no dispute that the magnitude of the work undertaken involves huge economic expenditure running to around 300 crores on an average in respect of each of the notified items. The purpose of forming a layout is to distribute 15,000 sites and the whole project to be completed within 30 days. A work of such magnitude to be completed within the prescribed time can only be undertaken by the persons who have necessary financial ability, competence, access to required machinery and technical expertise and command to man power at all times during the execution of the work. Only persons who have executed such works in the recent past would inspire confidence about their capacity, besides would raise an expectation that they would continue to be in command of labour power, machine, etc, whereas a person who would have executed such works in the remote past would have dismantled the establishment and may not be in control of men and machinery.
Similarly, if the bidders are allowed to bid in consortia, the respondents will not be able to fix the responsibilities on any individual and as it complains, if the experienced contractors were to allow the inexperienced members of consortia to execute the work, it is the quality of work that suffers and ultimately the public interest also suffers. Therefore, the prescribing of the eligibility criteria cannot be held to be either unreasonable or arbitrary. The contention that the eligibility criteria fixed is arbitrary therefore, deserves to be rejected."
"In so far as the contention of petitioners that when the Bangalore Development Authority had fixed a standard already as stated in Annexure 'C', it could not have departed from it by fixing a new criteria. What this contention overlooks is that the nature and magnitude of the work under two tender notifications, Annexure- 'C' and Annexure - 'A' are quite different and the same criteria cannot be said to be the standard one for all nature of works. The eligibility criteria varies with the nature and magnitude of each work. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention."
"For the reasons stated above, these Writ Petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs 3,000."
The petitioners filed a Writ Appeal, which also came to be dismissed. The verdict of the Hon'ble High Court has therefore become final. To say the least it is very surprising that Sri Deve Gowda is questioning the very action that has stood the test of judicial scrutiny. After hearing all arguments at great length the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to uphold the action of the BDA and dismiss the Writ Petitions with costs and now unsolicited advice is offered with of course his hall allegation of "crores of rupees being looted". Maybe he will next find fault with the Hon'ble High Court itself.
The lie that only three or four favoured contractors were awarded layout works has to be exposed. Only those contractors who were technically qualified and whose financial bid was the lowest were awarded works.
An illustrative but not exhaustive list is as follows:-
1. B.G. Channappa 2. L. Radhakrishna 3. G.N. Krishna 4. D. Prabhulinga swamy 5. Lakshman 6. K.V. Shetty and Company 7. H. Narasimhamurthy 8. V.K. Gopal 9. R. Maheshwara Naidu 10. S. Mahesh 11. Prashanth Builders 12. Parichita Constructions 13. Sai Constructions 14. Sanz Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 15. Mysore Construction Co. 16. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.
Do we take it that Sri Deve Gowda suffers from selective amnesia?
When layout contracts are tendered, the whole proposed layout is divided into convenient packages based on topography, contiguity etc. As different contractors quote for different blocks based on topography, contiguity, soil characteristics, connectivity etc it is obvious that rates quoted will vary from block. Sri Deve Gowda's contention is that the rates for all the blocks should not only be uniform but also the rates should be brought down to the block which has the lowest rate. When conditions on the ground vary how can one expect a uniform rate? Formation of sites is not a product manufactured in a factory on an assembly line production.
Block 1 Block II Block III Block IV Block V Name of Agency Sri. Lakshman Sri. Lakshman Sri. D. Prabhu Lingaswamy Sri. B. G. Channappa Sri. L. Radhakrishna Amount put to Tender 245,23,460 272,93,954 325,93,131 331,12,029 305,36,207 Quoted amount 279,57,013 311,82,067 282,26,902 380,92,454 351,15,743 % excess/below 14.00% above 14.25% above 13.40% below 15.04% above 15.00% above Negotiated % 9.00% above 9.00% above 13.40% below 6.00% above 6.00% above Amount after negotiation 267,30,571 297,50,410 282,26,902 350,98,751 323,68,379 Net savings 12,26,173 14,31,657 NIL 29,93,704 27,47,365 Total Savings after Negotiations 83,88,899
The table above indicates that for Blocks I,II,IV and V there is a premium above whereas in Block III the quote is 13.40% below. The contention is that all other Blocks also should have been brought down to Block III. A very specious argument. There are various reasons for below tender percentage for Block III , some of which are quantities, soil characteristics, topography, good approach road of 40' width with black top from the Kanakapura-Bangalore Highway and also the fact that it is just 2,20 kms from the Kengeri-Uttarahalli Main Road which facilitated greater communication, easier transportation of men and materials, movement of trucks, dozers and other earth moving machinery. What is important here is the overall savings of Rs 83,88,899.
Variation in rates between blocks is not isolated. This is a natural phenomenon and happens continually for the reasons, which anyone with an elementary common sense would appreciate. The table below indicates the same position. What should be noted is the overall savings of Rs 141,30,236.00.
Block VI Block VII Block VIII Block IX Block X Name of Agency Sri. D. Prabhu Lingaswamy Sri. B. G. Channappa M/s. Mysore Construction Company M/s. Larsen & Tuubro Ltd. Sri G. N. Krishna Amount put to Tender 337,95,217 359,35,533 163,07,707 250,93,099 293,23,979 Quoted amount 388,61,120 411,42,591 187,50,601 288,94,703 337,31,373 % excess/below 14.99% above 14.49% above 14.98% above 15.15% above 15.03% above Negotiated % 5.00% above 5.00% above 4.5% above 5.00% above 4.5% above Amount after negotiation 354,84,978 377,32,309 170,41,554 263,47,753 306,43,558 Net savings 33,76,142 34,10,282 17,09,047 25,46,950 30,87,815 Total Savings after Negotiations 141,30,236
Allegations have been made in the case of electrical works also. The charge is that tenders were delayed and in view of high tender premium there should have been a re-tendering, which would have ensured lower rates. There has been no delay. The process of negotiation and placing the subject before the Authority did take some time as procedures had to be followed. The statement that re-tendering would give a lower rate is a matter of conjecture, surmise and theoretical. The facts need to be placed on record. All estimates were prepared on the Schedule of Rates of the KPTCL prevailing in 2001. However when the contracts were approved by the Authority, the KPTCL had revised the Schedule of Rates with effect from 1-10-03.
In the case of HSR, Sector III, the tender percentage was 69.67% above the estimate of Rs 1.47 crores. After negotiation the percentage came down to 31.5% at Rs 1.14 crores. With the revised SR the percentage is just 18.34%. KPTCL procures material at 4% KST whereas it is 16% for BDA. If this is taken the premium is just 6.70% above
In the case of J.P. Nagar, Phase IX, an old layout which was not electrified, the tender premium was 69.95% above the estimated amount of Rs 2.41 crores. After negotiation the percentage came down to 31.5% at Rs 1.87 crores. With the revised SR the percentage is just 16.84%. If KST is taken at 4 % like for KPTCL and not 16 % the tender premium is just 5.53% above.
In the case of street light facilities to the layout in 1st A Block, 2nd Block and 2nd Block EWS Sector of 8th Phase of J.P. Nagar, the tender percentage was 62.76% above the estimate of Rs 1.57 crores. After negotiation the percentage came down to 31.5% at Rs 1.27 crores. With the revised SR the percentage is just 13.95%. If KST is taken at 4% like for KPTCL and not 16% the tender premium is just 2.71%.
In the case of street light facilities to Blocks, 9,10, and 11 of Anjanaoura Further Extension, the tender premium was 68.46% above the estimate of Rs 7.73 crores. After negotiation the percentage came down to 31.5% at Rs 6.03 crores. With the revised SR the percentage is just 10.41%. If KST is taken at 4% like for KPTCL abd not 16 %, the premium is 0.40 % below. The contract was awarded to Swamy Electricals and not to Kumar Electricals as wrongly stated.
In the case of Blocks 1 and 2 of BSK 6th Stage, the tender premium was 65.38 % above the estimate of Rs 6.04 crores. After negotiation the percentage came down to 31,5 % at Rs 4.80 crores. With the revised SR the percentage is just 12.05 %. If KST is taken at 4 % like for KPTCL and not 16% the premium is just 2.64% above.
In the case of Blocks 3,4,5, and 11 of BSK 6th Stage, the tender premium was 65.77 % above the estimate of Rs 11.11 crores. After negotiation the percentage came down to 31.5% at Rs 8.81 crores. With the revised SR the percentage is just 13.73 %. If KST is taken at 4 % like for KPTCL and not 16 % the premium is just 2.63 %.
In the case of Blocks 6,7,8,9 and 10 of BSK 6th Stage, the tender premium was 65.69 % above the estimate of Rs 10.61 crores. After negotiation the percentage came down to 31.5 % at Rs 8.42 crores. With the revised SR the percentage is just 11.9 %. If KST is taken at 4% like for KPTCL and not 16 %, the premium is just 1.05 %.
To show the care that has been taken to ensure quality and competitive rates, the illumination of the Outer Ring Road requires to be mentioned. When this tender of Rs 2.29 crores was floated, major companies participated i.e., Mysore Lamps, Philips, Crompton Greaves, Bajaj Electricals, GEC and Wipro. The contract went to Wipro at 8.6 % below, thus leaving a saving of Rs 60 lakhs in a tender of Rs 2.31 crores.
The next target of this allegation spree is the newly constructed HSR Commercial Complex constructed at a cost of Rs 7 crores. The allegation is that soil investigation was improperly done which led to wasteful expenditure and the additional work of construction of the 1st floor should have been tendered instead of awarding it to the existing contractor. The soil investigation for this project as also the designs were done by RITES. However when actual excavation began for the foundation, the exact nature of the soil became obvious which was soft, clayey porous, waterlogged and of poor SBC. This necessitated change in the foundation till hard strata was reached. With this, a decision was taken to plan the foundation for ground plus two floors and construct for the present ground plus one floor. As work was in progress, it only stood to reason to extend the scope of work of the existing contractor and award him the work of the first floor construction. The ground floor work was awarded at 1.84 % below the SR of 2002-03. The first floor construction was also awarded to the same contractor again at 1.84 % below the SR. This is permissible as per the provisions of the Transparency Act. Tendering would have led to delay, cost overruns and lack of uniformity.
The success of this project can be measured by the fact that the rental income to the BDA is now Rs 2.04 crores per annum and the sital value in HSR Layout has gone up from Rs 500 per square foot to Rs 1500-2000 per square foot.
I remember in the last four-odd years I have answered a number of starred questions in both Houses of the Legislature on land acquisitions and denotifications. My replies are now public as they form an integral part of the proceedings of both Houses. In spite of this Sri Deve Gowda has chosen to level wild and baseless allegations with his mental fixation that "crores has been looted".
He alleges that while vacant land and land belonging to big people has been left out, garden land, built up areas and lands belonging to small farmers has been notified for acquisition with a view to blackmail and extract "crores of rupees". The allegations are vague and specific details like, names of the land owners, survey numbers, extent of lands and names of villages are not furnished. Obviously these details are not forthcoming as they do not exist.
In the last four years the BDA has acquired without any litigation 5531 acres of land as against a meagre 500 acres from 1990 to 1999. This spectacular achievement was possible only because of the pro-active steps taken by the BDA. Land owners were involved right from the very beginning in the land acquisition process. The BDA played a role even in updating the land records. Objections were heard at the village level itself in public and the compensation cheque payment was made at the village itself. While the compensation compared well with the market rate incentive sites were also given i.e. one 60 x 40 site in the same layout for every acre of land acquired. When the entire acquisition process has been so successful and is transparent and open only vague, baseless and generalized allegations can be made.
The allegation is about denotification of acquired lands and hence it becomes necessary to understand the various stages of the land acquisition process in the BDA.
1. Proposal for formation of Scheme by Engineering Dept. 2. Permission/approval from Govt u/s 15 of the BDA Act. 3. Issue of Preliminary Notification u/s 17(1) & (3) of the BDA Act with prior approval of the Authority. 4. Issue of Notices u/s 17(5) of the BDA Act. 5. Hearing of objections by the Land Acquisition Officer, determining availability of land by the Land Acquisition Officer and preparation of the Scheme. 6. Sanction of the Scheme by Govt. u/s 18 of the BDA Act. 7. Issue of Final Notification u/s 19 of the BDA Act by Govt. 8. Issue of Notices u/s 9 & 10 of the Land Acquisition Act. 9. Passing of Award u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. 10. Issue of Notices u/s 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. (Award Notice). 11. Taking of possession u/s 16(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and handing over of such lands to the Engineering Dept' 12. Issue of Notification u/s 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act declaring that the lands are vested with the Authority.
It is absolutely legal to drop acquisition proceedings or denotify lands in the land acquisition process from stages 1 to 10 as indicated above. However, once stage 11 is crossed i.e., possession of land has been taken no denotification can be done.
There is always a difference in the area notified in the Preliminary Notification and the Final Notification. This is the status all over the country. The reasons are very simple. The objective of the Preliminary Notification is to indicate to the land owners and the general public that it is proposed to acquire lands. It is this Notification that empowers the Land Acquisition Officer with the authority to inspect the lands in question as other wise he could be held guilty of trespass. After hearing objections and conducting the award Enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer determines the exact extent of land to be acquired and extent to be left out with reasons recorded and determines the compensation to be paid. Such difference in the extent of the land has always been there as the following table indicates.
LANDS NOTIFIED IN PRELIMINARY AND FINAL NOTIFICATION
Sl. No. LAYOUT Year Extent Preli.Notif FinalNotif Pre.Not.Acre-Guntas F.N.Acre-Guntas LeftAcre-Guntas % Old Layouts:- 1. B.T.M. Layout 1988 1990 646-39 376-24 270-15 42% 2. H.B.R. III Stage 1978 1989 982-06 433-32 548-14 56% 3. B.S.K. IV Stage 1987 1989 606-19 364-02 242-17 40% 4. B.S.K. V Stage 1989 1994 1851-39 1458-21 393-18 21% 5. Sajjepalya 1987 1996 225-31 160-00 65-31 29% Sl. No. LAYOUT Year Extent Preli.Notif FinalNotif Pre.Not.Acre-Guntas F.N.Acre-Guntas LeftAcre-Guntas % 6 Srigandadakaval 1987 1996 1047-06 468-12 578-34 53% 7. Anjanapura 1999 2000 475-27 459-24 16-03 3% 8. B.S.K. VI Stage 2000 2001 2138-04 1598-02 540-02 25% 9. Sir M. Vishweswaraiah Layout 2001 2002 1695-07 1337-22 357-25 21%
Government has the power to denottify lands under acquisition. The purposes could be varied as the table below indicates.
DENOTIFICATIONS BY GOVT. FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES FROM 12-10-1999 TO 30-6-2004. Sl. No. Purpose ExtentAcre-Guntas 1. Religious Purposes 15-25 2. Parallel Acquisition 16-06 3. Land Either side of the Outer Ring Road 127-15 4. Nurseries 26-14 5. Educational purposes 11-00 6. Industries & Poultries 02-08 7. Srigandadakaval Scheme(Parallel acquisition by APMC) 468-12 8. Parallel acquisition by BWSSB 11-25 9. H.S.R. II Stage(In favour of KIADB) 110-00 10. B.T.M. III Stage(Scheme dropped due to built-up) 376-24 11. J.P. Nagar VII Stage(Scheme dropped due to built-up) 880-25 12. Built-up 157-36 Total 2203-30
Large extents have been notified because of parallel acquisition by other Government Departments like, APMC, KIADB, BWSSB etc. During the regime of the previous Government a decision was taken to acquire land only to the extent that was required for the Right of Way (ROW) for the Outer Ring Road and to denotify all lands on either side of the Outer Ring Road that had been notified for acquisition. This commitment was honoured by my Government. I have mentioned that in the past there was inordinate delay in acquisition proceedings. This led to large areas getting built up and thereby making the implementation of the layout scheme itself impossible. The dropping of such schemes had no other alternative as a visit to these areas will reveal.
The ignorance of the former Chief Minister on the question of alternative sites is amazing. Right from the CITB days alternate sites are being allotted. There is nothing new in this. I can understand if there was a prohibition to allot alternative sites and in spite of this prohibition alternative sites were allotted. There are various reasons for allotment of alternative sites and such reasons are invariably recorded. Among others, the reasons are, prolonged litigation, unauthorized constructions on the site, multiple or double allotment of the same site, HT/LT electrical lines passing over the site, incorrect dimension of site allotted, corner site which should be auctioned, low lying area, site not formed, rocky out crop etc. When the reasons are given the hue and cry raised on this issue becomes comical.
Take the case of one Sunitha being given a 100' x 100' site in HSR Sector III. A portion of the Intermediate Ring Road at the junction of Koramangala was incomplete as the land owners had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and obtained a stay. Sunitha was one such land owner. An agreement was arrived at whereby the land owners were given alternate land on a land to land basis and the road was completed. This applied not just to Sunitha but to others similarly placed also.
The former Secretary's son-in-law was given an alternate site on the basis of a Court order. In the case of Sri Gopinath when it was noticed that he was the allotee of two BDA sites one was cancelled. If Sri Gopinath has filed a false affidavit who is to blame? The very same question of alternate sites has been replied to by me in the Legislative Council to Question No 127 of Sri Madhusudhan. When there is no provision to collect a higher rate for an alternative site in an earlier formed layout how can this be done ? When reasons are recorded and open to the public can "crores of rupees" be collected ?
The demolition of unauthorized constructions and the recovery of public property has been acclaimed all over the country. Financing through law enforcement is a model unique to the BDA. More than 175 acres of land valued at over Rs 700 crores has been recovered in Bangalore. This has been done at considerable odds, including threats to life of the officers concerned and their families. True to form Sri Deve Gowda finds "crores of rupees" here also.
The previous Government had amended the BDA Act by inserting Section 38 C (2), which provided for regularization of all unauthorized occupation/encroachment on BDA land. This provision rewarded the land grabbers at the expense of the law-abiding citizen. Land grabbing is a crime and should be punished and not rewarded.
Retribution for crime can never be a national waste. If unauthorized occupation of all vacant BDA land is regularized parks, playgrounds, CA sites, commercial sites and prime residential sites are the casualty. With this in mind you are aware that we repealed Section 38 C (2). This repeal was challenged in a batch of nearly 2000 Writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka. `In a judgment running into 57 pages, a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed all these petitions in what has now come to be known as the John B James and Others versus Bangalore Development Authority and Another case reported in ILR 2000 KAR 4134. While dismissing the petitions the High Court among others observed, "Bangalore Development Authority to take action for demolition and dispossession, where petitioners are not in settled possession". In a number of judgments the Supreme Court has categorically said that all unauthorized constructions should be demolished. In M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd versus Shyam Sahu and others reported in AIR 1999 SC 2468 the Supreme Court said, "Unauthorised construction has to be demolished there is no way out."
In an unreported judgment where Sri P Chidambaram, our present Union Finance Minister appeared in the Supreme Court in D.D. Mittal and Others versus Union of India and Others had this to say on 16-10-2000.
"Mr. Chidambaram, no doubt, submitted with his usual persuasiveness that so far as the buyers are concerned with the relevant documents on record they must be held to be protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, but we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the said submission. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in our opinion, this should be an eye opener to the builders as well as the intending purchasers of flats in the Municipality of Delhi. We decline to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed."
You will recall that the question of demolition of unauthorized constructions by the BDA was sought to be raised in the Legislative Assembly in the form of an Adjournment Motion on 10th April 2000. The proceedings of that day make very interesting reading. In the end the House was unanimous that demolitions should continue and I quote from the proceedings what I had said.
"Encroachments on parks and playgrounds can never be regularized. There is total unanimity on this as this would go against the law of the Supreme Court. Encroachment on civic amenity sites can never be regularized, as these sites are the properties of the community and reserved for the direct benefits of the residents of the locality. Encroachments of commercial sites can also never be regularized as this would amount to condoning what they have done unauthorisedly. Pakka residential houses do merit some consideration."
Demolitions require equipment, skill, secrecy and courage. Not all contractors can or are willing to do this work as apart from damage to equipment they also are open to various risks. That is why the BDA was given exemption under the Transparency Act to engage only one particular contractor. For the demolition work for the past four and a half years this contractor has been paid just Rs 1.40 crores and not "hundreds of crores". This amount is miniscule compared to the Rs 700 crores worth of property recovered.
When the law on encroachment of public property has been laid down by the High Court of Karnataka and the Supreme Court of India and our own Legislative Assembly is unanimous it is strange that Sri Deve Gowda advocates the cause of white collar criminals as that is what land grabbers are.
STUP Consultants India Private Limited, is a French multinational company, headquartered in Bombay. They are a reputed engineering consultancy organization working in different countries and enjoy a very high reputation. They have undertaken work for various Government Depts and Agencies across the Country.
In India the Chairman and Managing Director is Sri Aleemchandhani. The Bangalore Office is headed by Sri A.T. Samuel who is just an employee of the Company and not the owner. The fees paid so far is just Rs 3 crores. It is most unfortunate that Sri Deve Gowda has resorted to something, which is most despicable. Just because Sri Samuel and the former BDA Commissioner are Christians he concludes that they are hand in glove in "looting crores of rupees". Work that is being done for the Bowring Hospital by STUP is absolutely pro bono. Similarly any work undertaken by Professor is pro bono.
I think I have answered most or all of the issues raised. In any case I have neither the time nor the inclination to clandestinely obtain documents from Government Offices. No matter what Sri Deve Gowda may say the public at large without exception are full of admiration and appreciation for the spectacular turn around of the BDA during my stewardship.
In 1999, the BDA was an Organisation on the decline with severe financial problems. The few projects on hand had large time and cost overruns. While there was no morale within the Organisation public credibility was at an all time low. A High Level Committee consisting of Dr Ravindra IAS, Sri P.S.S. Thomas and Prof B.K. Chandrashekar recommended winding up of the BDA. The BDA at it's Authority meeting passed a resolution recommending that the Organisation be wound up in 1999. The Government of the day accepted the recommendations and it was on the verge of closure that my Government assumed office. The rest as they is history.
From a Budget of Rs 131 crores in 1999 the BDA Budget for the current year is Rs 1200 crores. Last year's Revised Estimates are Rs 1004 crores. The BDA is the only Government Organisation in the Country to get an LAA + (SO) rating for five years from ICRA without a Government guarantee. The BDA floated Debentures and raised Rs. 100 crores from the market again without a Government guarantee - again a first in the country. The BDA has been able to invest more than Rs. 300 crores from it's own internal accruals towards Bangalore's infrastructure and environmental protection, namely:
Outer Ring Road, Beneginahalli Flyover, Whitefield Flyover, Hebbal Flyover, Central Silk Board Flyover, Varthur Underpass, Rejuvenated Beneginahalli lake, Rejuvenated Agara Lake, Rejuvenated Lal Bagh lake, Renovated Glass House, Renovated Band Stand in Lal Bagh, Illumination of the Glass House and entire Lal Bagh, 1.5 MLD Sewerage treatment plant, A totally computerized state of the art Irrigation system for the Lal Bagh.
Through securitisation of corner sites more than adequate funds are available for the Peripheral Road which I had proposed in the Governor's address. A Protocol was signed with the French Government during the visit of the Prime Minister of that Country whereby a soft loan of Rs 20 crores has been given to the BDA for the revision of the CDP. This revision is now underway with a team of French experts who are now working out of the City. Bangalore will be the first City in the Country to have a digitized CDP. Of course I do concede that a basic level of intelligence is required to comprehend all this.
In the last four decades of my public life, I have had the opportunity and privilege of fighting many political battles with Sri Deve Gowda. You will recall that in 1977, it was Sri Deve Gowda who was primarily responsible in instituting the Justice Grover Commission of Enquiry against the late Sri Devaraj Urs and some of us, the outcome of which, is now part of Karnataka's political history. I have no predilection of going on the offensive unnecessarily. However, should the circumstances so warrant, I am willing to take this to its logical and inevitable end.
I am sure you will agree with me when I say that Sri Deve Gowda has done what he is best at doing i.e, suppressing the truth and suggesting falsehood. His sole purpose in doing this is obviously to tarnish the image of the Indian National Congress which has been invigorated under the dynamic leadership of Smt. Sonia Gandhi, our Congress president and in this ignoble endeavour, he will most certainly be defeated.
More News
