Bangalore: While civic experts and resident welfare associations continue to cry foul, a cash-strapped BBMP appears to be going ahead with the Akrama Sakrama scheme, which it apparently sees as a tool to raise funds and overcome its bankruptcy.
Mooted by the S.M. Krishna government before the 2004 elections, the scheme was given shape by the JDS-BJP coalition government which passed the Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain Others Amendment Act, 2004 to kickstart it.
But even as the fee for regularisation of deviations and other violations in buildings was being fixed, the scheme was stalled in the face of protests which led to the the high court’s door. In 2008, the BJP government, which pushed for the scheme found itself up against Governor H.R. Bhardwaj, who refused to give it his consent.
He remained adamant even when presented with it in 2010, but in May 2013, after ministers of the newly formed Congress government pushed for it, the Governor softened his stand and agreed to give his consent provided some modifications were made to the scheme. In September of that year the government claimed the modifications were in place to benefit the poor and the middle class and in December, the state assembly passed the new-look legislation.
While going ahead with the Akrama Sakrama scheme, the government ignored both sceptics and experts who had suggested it try it out as a pilot project in a locality or a few wards of Bangalore first. Some experts had recommended that each urban centre of the state should handle the scheme differently. But every time such advice was given, the government kept trying to sell the bill by saying penalty slabs for violators would not have to be uniform across the state, and city corporations would be allowed to fix the regulation fee depending on public response.
The incentive to push the scheme was clearly the Rs 5,000 crore revenue it was expecting to mop up from the city alone. But civic expert, Ashwin Mahesh, warns, “This will again go back to the courts. The government is saying it is okay to annoy your neighbours as long as you pay us and get whatever wrong you have done regularised.
It wants violations to continue because the money from them is feeding it so well,” he regrets. The whole scheme is illogical in his view as the government is unwilling to address two core issues: the need for the neighbour’s consent for regularisation and punishment of officials who allowed the violations or deviations to go unnoticed while the buildings were coming up.
Kathyayini Chamaraj, executive trustee, CIVIC, says if the government is determined to go ahead with the scheme, then it should not let the violators get away with just a one time penalty, but penalise them on a monthly basis. “They cannot pay some money and get away with their crime,” she insists.
Next: Govt playing votebank politics: CAF
Govt playing votebank politics: CAF
While the government seems to be pushing ahead with the Akrama Sakrama scheme, it still hasn’t got the all clear for it from the high court, which stayed it in 2008. Ravindranath Guru of Citizen Action Forum, who is party to the PIL filed against it in high court, says the government can only go ahead with the scheme subject to the high court’s clearance.
“The HC has stayed the scheme and asked the government to give its clarification, but it has not done so yet although we had a hearing in court even last week. They want to keep it pending as bait till the elections. It is all votebank politics as usual.
Also, the policy is very vague as it does not specify what extent of violation can be regularised under Akrama Sakrama,” he says. The activist thinks it is pathetic that the government trying to capitalise on violations to solve its own financial problems. “What action has been taken against the officers who allowed the violations to take place? If my neighbour who has grossly violated building bylaws continues to stay on after paying a fine, what good is this to me?” he notes.
Mukund Rao of Citizen Action Forum says all “akramas” cannot be eligible for “sakramas.” “If the government wants to implement the scheme, the opinion of the neighbours must be taken. After all, they are the affected ones. The traffic department should also be consulted and there must be a time period within which a person can apply for benefit under the scheme,” he says.
Members of several resident welfare associations, meanwhile, are complaining that their views on the scheme have not been taken into account by the government. “Our protests have no value. No one in government bothers to consult the RWAs,” regrets Keshav Kumar, secretary of the Jayanagar resident welfare association.
