Bengaluru: The state government’s ambitious Akrama-Sakrama scheme, which is regularisation of unauthorised constructions and violations in building bylaws across the state, has received the much-needed 'shot in the arm' with the the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissing a batch of public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the Constitutional validity of the scheme.
A division bench headed by Chief Justice S.K. Mukherjee passed the orders, saying that if a large number of buildings that are constructed in violation of building bylaws are demolished then it will lead to disastrous consequences.
The court highlighted the fact that civic agencies are finding it hard to meet the demand for residential areas because of unauthorised constructions. Bengaluru alone has 1.53 lakh unauthorised buildings and sites, it said.
But in the order, the court said, “We are of the opinion that all care and precautions are taken to see that there is no compromise with respect to storm water drains, tank bed areas, river courses, canals, area below high-tension electrical lines, parks, playgrounds, open space for providing civic amenities, coastal regulation zones, and so on. No development (should be allowed) in basement area or usage in contravention to the bylaws. Certification from a structural engineer is also compulsory. The rules clearly show that no development shall be regularised unless violation in respect of the change in land use is first regularised.”
The bench observed that the unregulated growth is not just limited to cities like Bengaluru and Mangaluru, but it is the problem of every city and union territory, and said that demolishing a large number of constructions on the premise of violations would be disastrous and result in national waste.
“Those who will lose their homes will end up on the streets. The government is not in a position to provide them alternative sites and in addition to that it will have to look into the problems of those who lose their properties,” it said.
The petitioners, Citizens Forum for Mangalore Development, and others had challenged the validity of the scheme, while a few residential welfare associations (RWAs) had challenged it with respect to the fee prescribed in the scheme. RWAs argued that the fees fixed based on the dimensions of sites were discriminatory and arbitrary.
Unhappy with verdict, forum to move SC
Although the Court verdict dismissing the PIL against the legality of the Sakrama scheme is said to benefit thousands of residents across the state and Bengaluru in particular, the petitioners, the Citizens’ Action Forum (CAF) have expressed their displeasure and said they would challenge the order at the Supreme Court.
CAF President D.S. Rajshekar told Deccan Chronicle that the court order has come like a shocker to the residents and the members of his organisation, who have questioned the legality of the scheme and how the authorities who allowed the unauthorised construction right under their noses go Scot free. After going through the details of the order copy the CAF will decide on whether to go for review petition or approach the apex court, he added.
It is very unfortunate that though the state government gave a cut-off date to be those eligible for the Sakrama scheme as October 19, 2013 (only those buildings which were built prior to this date are eligible for Sakrama), the very government later allowed the public to avail the scheme until 2016, thereby giving a long rope to those who have been flouting the rules. As of now, there is no mechanism to check if any individual makes false claim on the date of construction to make himself eligible for the scheme.
Further, Rajshekar said the government has blatantly failed to fix any responsibility on the erring officials and the scheme is like punishing the law abiding citizens and bailing out those violated the rules and norms.
The scheme said the residential buildings with violations up to 50 per cent and commercial structures up to 25 per cent violations can avail the scheme by paying the penalty.
The penalty fixed is as per the guidance value of the property that prevailed in 2013. However, the penalty varies from place to place, depending upon the guidance value fixed by the stamps and registration department, he added.
The catch is that the scheme paves way for the inspector raj system. Who is to validate the extent of violations? What is the guarantee that the officials do not misuse the provisions by allowing constructions beyond 50 per cent and 25 per cent for residential and commercial structures respectively, Rajshekar said.
