By Narendra Nayak
Mangaluru, Jan 18, 2017: The murdered activist Vinayak Baliga had filed a complaint against the unauthorized construction of the multi storied building of the South Kanara Dravida Brahmins Association (SKDB) which houses a number of enterprises called as educational institutions going under the brand name of Sharada Vidyalaya. That they do not care for the laws of the land is evident enough from the way they act as if the vacant piece of government land is their property. They have constructed a building on it without any care for the bye laws of the civic bodies. Baliga had observed this in 2012 itself and had filed a complaint with the Mangalore City Corporation through RTI TP281/2012-13 dated 8-11-2012. When the same had come for hearing on the 24th of March, 2016 Baliga was no more, since he had been brutally hacked to death in front of his home.
In order to continue his battle against the irregularities and injustice, Baliga’s sister Harsha and Narendra Nayak had got impleaded into the case and have been continuing the same. The case Vinayak Baliga vs SKDB has been going on since four years with the opposite party seeking adjournment after adjournment with the hope that the complainant would lose interest but in this case he lost his life. The Mangalore City Corporation authorities who had carried out an inspection then had found that the license was for putting up a building of three floors for a total built up area of around 970 Sq. Mtrs but had been actually there were six floors with a built up area of 2015 Sq. Mtrs. Obviously this was out of arrogance since the office bearers of the SKDB were big wigs of the then ruling party. The commissioner had warned them sternly against those things and had had ordered them to resubmit plans conforming to the terms of the license within seven days! But nothing like that happened, the construction continued and the building has been occupied without caring tuppence for the order/instructions/warning of the corporation authorities.
Now years have rolled by and the premises continue to be used by the so called educational institutions who claim to provide ‘education’ to thousands of students. If blatant violation of the laws of the land is done by the providers of values, wonder how the next generation will be? They have been expressing joy at the new regularisation scheme of the Karnataka Government called as akrama sakrama and their lawyer has been demanding that the hearing of the Baliga case be adjourned till the case is decided. Recently when the stay on this scheme by the Karnataka High court was vacated, the management was elated and claimed that their stand had been vindicated! But sadly the Supreme Court has now stayed it again and has even declined an early hearing!
So, where does this building stand even if the ambitious scheme of the Karnataka government to regularize unauthorized constructions be implemented? This scheme is as follows:
76FF of the KTCP act section 9:
No development where the violation is in excess of such prescribed limit but not exceeding fifty per cent of permissible floor area ratio in respect of residential building and not exceeding twenty-five percent of permissible floor area ratio in respect of non-residential building shall be regularised and different maximum limit may be prescribed in respect of different class of development: 7 Provided that where such development resulting in violation is in excess of prescribed limit, such development shall not be regularised unless the development resulting in violation is brought down within the regularisable limit under this Act.
So even if this scheme were to come into force, it would allow for regularization of 25% of the built up area and not for more than 100%. Even for this purpose the applicant has to bring the building to the permitted level of extra built up area before applying for regularization. So, the complainants Harsha Baliga and Narendra Nayak have stated as follows:
This is in blatant violation of law and a wanton act done with the intention of profit at the cost of putting pressure on the civic amenities. The opposite party has to use the ground floor/cellar for parking but has been using it for other purposes, which is illegal and risky to the public at large. The building laws have been drafted in a way as to assure safety, easy access and egress in case of disasters which is very essential in an educational institution
The opposite party instead of using the cellar for parking is using for other purposes which it is not intended to. The construction has been more than 100% of the sanctioned plan and hence liable to be demolished.
The said premises are not a building used for residential purposes and the deviation is more than four times that of the prescribed limit of 25% under the akrama-sakrama scheme. This means that a maximum deviation of around 242.5 sq. mtrs can be regularised. The extent of the deviation has been recorded by the authorities of the Mangalore City Corporation and even if the scheme were to be implemented this level of deviation will not be regularized.
Hence it is prayed that two full floors- the second and third floor measuring 342.92 each, a total of 685.84 Sq. Mtrs be demolished. This will leave 1329.20 Sq. Mtrs which will be well above the maximum allowed under the akrama-sakrama scheme. Under this the maximum allowance will be 25% of the sanctioned area which amounts to a total of 1212.06 Sq. Mtrs. A portion of the first floor could be sealed off and the rest be allowed to be used with an undertaking that it will be demolished if the regularization is not possible. The cellar could be reserved for parking only as the parking of vehicles of the opposite party is causing nuisance to the public and also blocking the traffic on the main road.
Hence it is prayed that the demolition order be passed immediately to demolish the excess construction upto the maximum limits possible under the scheme for regularization.
A spot inspection may be done in the presence of the complainants.
The next hearing of this case has been posted for the 27th of January. In the hearing held on the 13th the complainants have objected strongly to the dilatory tactics of the opposite party in seeking adjournment after adjournment to buy time and have prayed for an immediate demolition order.