Just saw this thread.

Have been involved in PILs on sakarama , the first time around 2 years ago when the PIL stopped collection of fines and more recently when  the government through an ordinance ,tried to get the governor to sign.

We had appraised the goverenor separtely on the issues and court case involved ,and that might have had some effect in GOV refusing to sign( quoting the existence of a PIL as one of the reasons) .

General media still does not seem to have a real hang on this issue , consistently taking the government line , that is a measure  for the benefit of the public.

I am however in some kind of quandry, not fully sure of how to go forward.Sure we have enough ammunition ( resources and the basic tenents of law) to continually try and stop sakarama in courts.But it just does not change the sitiation on the ground.Each time round when we stop the sakrama , the situation on the gorund gets that much worse, with more unauthorised buildings, coming up..

I am tending towards the view that there should be a civil society drafting of the bill, and then trying to push it through ,assuming of course , it is a half decent bill and can get acceptance by different sections.

Some tenets i believe in in this issue.

a)Building bye law violations and zonal violations  cannot be treated under the same coin with different level of fines.A bye law violation( if deviations allowed are kept to a reasonable level) effects probably a neighbour , while a zonal violation( a commercial complex in a  residential area) , can effect a whoelcommunity /neighbourhood.

b) A violation for profit( rent etc) needs to be treated very very differently from one of self occupation. 

c)All violations cannot be regularised/accepted overnight.Some need time , like the long period that was given to delhi factories to move out of town centres.

d)That ,at least the masterplan 2015 should be the benchmark,bringing all buildings to one level of law.Currently ,proposed sakarma bills  allows deviations /zonal violations well above the masterplan which  itself has liberalised bye laws and large zonal changes form earlier plans.The fact that I do not personally agree with the masterplan and have a separate PIL on that, is a different issue.

e)Inbuilt into the system of new law /regularisation needs to be a mechanism , that in future the same should not repeat.I have given up the thinking that "beuracrats who allowed this to happen should also be punished "point of view.  i dont know how to make that work, even as a suggestion.

f)The drastic other way of looking at this, along with 74th amedment,MPC and devolution of powers, that this whole regularisation is under the purview of local governement with wards/ward commitees having the right  to approve /not approve under some guldelines.This I fear will bring the building/and real estate  lobby right to our doorsteps.

Tough problem to crack.

vmenon 

• favorite 96 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

I have said this before, & I say it again....

Building violations must never be 'regularized' - Not legally, Not ethically, Not morally, Not conscientously, Never !

Courts would never permit such regularization since they are "violations".

The only solution to this is to charge higher property taxes for such buildings as long as they remain in violation. Once such building violations are rectified, taxes can be reverted back & made normal - this is the best way ahead since immediate rectification might not be possible by most such building owners.

Govt & BBMP are barking up the wrong tree by imagining that the problem will get sorted out after collecting fines & "regularizing" them. On the contrary, they are actually inviting the whole city to violate bye-laws & all new buildings will be prepared to pay such "fine" & build more than permitted by bye-laws.

• favorite 95 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

Any idea who all have taken this issue ( sakrama ..) to court ? Carlton Tower fire / Park street fire .. are some cases. You need some strategy on what ground to offer resistance ( court cases need series of arguements - each point you raise can be knocked off by the other side. You need a legal mind..with Chess players foresight )

Take Carlton Tower.. Some extra additional rooms were made ( media report ). Built Up Area includes floor + Walls (formula). After additions BUA should have gone up (fr date of alteration ). 

sample case - get Prop Tax paid over last 20yrs under RTI for this bldg and you have a puzzle. On one hand papers say extra office was built . On the other hand you have Prop Tax paid figures RTI.  Do they match ?

Beauty of Prop Tax SAS is you pay once and just show old recpt and pay for life ( Extra BUA can be forgotten )

High Property Taxes till bldgs remain in violation is one way. What ever you may think Urban Min may push  the issue for some other reason

Can they do that ? They are all part of the govt. State need the money

 .

• favorite 98 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

Everyone knows Sakrama is a lousy rule..even the Law Minister agrees that its not correct!

 But gives a very unconvincing reason for going ahead with Sakarama.."we also need to consider the fact that the city needs more funds with growing infrastructure needs"

What are the budgets for? If low on funds, raise legit loans and repay them!

Just because there is news of Sakrama...people of this city are violating all possible rules around construction..its very visible everywhere..from small houses to big complexes!

Shame on them! Shame on us!

Unfortunately here, one is taught how to break or bend all rules than abide by them! Very unfortunate!

• favorite 111 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

A violation is a violation. The owner better pay up a fine imposed every year, on a growing scale, until the violation is corrected. Sakrama just encourages more violations and more such schemes in future, while the city breaks apart.

But I'm sure our greedy society (rulers and the ruled included) will find ingenious ways to violate any rule imposing such a fine itself! :) 

• favorite 105 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

Hi All

we should be fine not regularizing the building violations which were in BDA /BMRDA/BMP limits.

Now after formation of BBMP more villages that were part of Gram panchyat have come under BBMP people who have purchased sites or building with a  permission of gram needs to regularized .

layouts in these area donot have BBMP khata nor premission . As of now BBMP is not giving khata in these layouts what should people in these layouts do .

Now banks are not funding gram panchyat approved layouts nor BBMP is giving permission to build house in these layouts .

BBMP says we need to wait till sakrama is scheme is implemented so that they collect betterment fees and than give khata

Before objecting i request to think about these people also.

• favorite 87 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

Hi NM7427 - Welcome to Praja,

Surely, Sakrama, or regularization of buildings that have violations is not the way ahead since this would mean that violations are being accepted, & will be an open invitation for more such in the future! It suits BBMP (& many building violators) whilst it also absolves the authorities of failure in keeping a check on the menace of building violations. It would also be unfair to those that have abided by bye-laws & rules.

BBMP waiting for Sakrama to be implemented before giving khatas & permitting construction (in erstwhile gram panchayats or CMCs) is only a ploy to push through Sakrama & get money out from the public.

Perhaps this needs to be fought in the courts on the grounds that BBMP cannot halt issuance of khatas & construction activity in such areas, provided there is full compliance with building bye-laws since it has no relation with Sakrama or any such program.

• favorite 112 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

The drastic other way of looking at this, along with 74th amedment,MPC and devolution of powers, that this whole regularisation is under the purview of local governement with wards/ward commitees having the right  to approve /not approve under some guldelines.This I fear will bring the building/and real estate  lobby right to our doorsteps.

Small modification would be to plan at the Tier 3 (ULB) but seek approval at Tier 4 (Ward). So while BBMP would propose a mall, the ward where the mall comes up should be able to vote on it after a ward level public hearing. Else BBMP takes the proposal to another ward.

Now this will work only if the revenue from the mall was shared in some proportion to Tier 4 even if revenue collection was being done at Tier 3, else the ward will reject anything & everything. And this can happen only if the management of the ward was left to the ward comittee and not to BBMP.

This can be extended to housing & any other utilities, BBMP proposes, ward accepts or rejects based on clearly documented ward hearing minutes.

• favorite 100 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

atleast some what..

the Palike has apparently enhanced its revenue-generating avenues. The cash-starved BBMP could now collect penalty for building byelaw violations, which are below 5 per cent, from these high-rises. Sources in the Palike said a “compounding fee” would be levied on buildings found with violations.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/170639/bbmp-scale-583-high-rises.html

..or is it another sakrama scheme?

• favorite 99 Likes
• | login or register to post comments