Tussle over BDA sites

Bengaluru
Nov. 23: A residential layout created after acquisition of land in 1984 has become a bone of contention between the present owners and a few farmers claiming ownership over the land. Some owners of BDA sites in Nagavara, who were allotted the land by the Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society (VHBCS), approached the KG Halli police after the farmers claimed ‘re-ownership’.
According to Devanand Kalavase, 60,who represented the site owners, the first complaint was registered in October when some people tried to destroy roads in the layout.
“Land in Nagavara was acquired by the state government through a final notification for a layout. The layout plan was approved and the same was sanctioned by the BDA. The VHBCS allotted sites to its members in the layout and some have already built houses there. The layout has electricity, water and drainage facility. However, some local residents have attempted to encroach on the land by posing as the erstwhile owners of the land,” the complainant
stated.
According to the police, the tussle between the farmers and the site owners has reached a final stage.
“The society had been allotting sites to its members till 2004. However, the farmers moved court and after a protracted legal
battle, the apex court ruled that the land has to be returned to the farmers.
The legal department too issued the same instructions with a note that the farmers have to return the compensation amount taken for the land. But some owners
have already built houses on the sites,” a police officer said.
The members alleged that the farmers had tried to build compound walls around various sites. When the site owners questioned this, the farmers threatened them with dire consequences.
The complainant states that a civil dispute is still pending before a local court. “Despite the site owners having legitimate documents, the cops have failed to take action against the miscreants. The police is not protecting the rights of the residents in the layout. The SC directions have been misinterpreted,” the complainant added.