Citizen Matters, Bangalore: Pune: Tuesday, 15 July
2014.
Every day
there are illegal constructions coming up in various places in Bengaluru. Are
the authorities blind? Can't they see these as they drive past them? Why is
this going on even when laws strictly prohibit them?
While illegal
constructions should in most cases be demolished, there would be important
considerations. These are spelt out in a Supreme Court judgement on the Delhi
demolitions. This has been mentioned and explained in the CAF PIL against Akrama
- Sakrama, which was signed by me on behalf of CAF, when I was its secretary.
The substance
of the PIL was that in a large majority of the cases, people are victims of
cheating by building contractors in collusion with government officials and
politicians. In such cases, the victims should be given relief and not
punished, while the real criminals go scot-free.
Of
ineffective laws and incompetent officials
The Campa
Cola housing society case is a typical example of how horribly wrong things can
go if court cases are not handled properly. Here the victims have lost their
homes while no contractor or government official is punished.
In Adarsh
scam, the politicians and the flat owners in powerful positions have allegedly
pressured the officials to gain illegal gratification in the form of property.
Thus the former chief of the army staff and chief minister are allegedly
flat-owner beneficiaries of the scam, in which case they may not be innocent
victims, but could have been active participants. Such cases have to be dealt
differently.
In the
instances of illegal buildings coming up in Bangalore, one has to apply the
same yardstick. Are these commercial buildings in residential areas or are
these housing flats? Are those who purchased the flats for their homes victims
or connivers?
It is perhaps
easier to stop the construction before its completion rather than find remedies
after finishing and occupation.
The affidavit
filed by the government in High Court said they can't take action against government
servants because there are too many of them. They can't punish contractors
because they are not traceable.
This
effectively means that politicians get away not because the law is inadequate,
but more due to corruption and incompetent lawyers.
Also, a
comprehensive law to punish building contractors and their co-conspirators and
proper implementation of the law through total transparency will rid us of the
menace of illegal construction.
Why does
BDA even exist?
I had asked
through RTI queries all building construction sanctioning authorities, BWSSB,
BDA etc as to what do they consider when issuing sanctions.
The replies
are pathetic. For example, BWSSB was asked whether they consider the
availability of water for occupants of buildings and uses to which it would be
put. The reply was no. They give water if available, when the user / owner /
occupant applies for water connection after construction.
If they are
giving water only if it were available on completion of the building, why take
their sanction at all before commencement of construction? The same applies to
BDA. I asked them whether they consider aspects, such as road space in front of
the building at the time of sanction. The reply was as delightfully vague as
that of BWSSB.
Mind you, BDA
was set up with the sole purpose of "coordinating" with parastatal
bodies to ensure availability of public services to building occupants and this
is a major parameter of planned development. If they are not doing this basic
function, why do they exist? In fact, in 1997, committee of secretaries had
suggested that BDA be wound up as it had outlived its utility.
Actually,
Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA) Act was legislated
since BDA failed to do its job and that is why the Chief Minister is the
ex-officio chairperson of BMRDA.
BDA is
retained perhaps because it is vested with the power to acquire land, a
convenient device that aids notification / denotification, which is useful for
speculation in land, which the long neglected Town and Country Planning Act
sought to prevent.
Another
tomfoolery that goes on is "A - katha / B - katha." This is a very
useful instrument of money-making in which, even banks, unwittingly are
parties. More on this later.