Hi
There is a small layout having around 15-20 sites made by the landlord near Sir M V layout area.
This is a DC Converted land & having BDA NOC. There are only two rows of sites, one row
facing North and another Row having Road on both North and South Side. Basic amenities like UG
Water Connection, Drainage & Sanitary Lines are laid. These sites are having dimensions slightly
higher than 30X40 & above. This layout is around 400 mtrs from the upcoming 80 ft road and around
1.5 KMs from from ORR(From Deepa Complex Near Ambedkar Engg COllege).
Quoted price is Rs. 2,700/sq.ft negotiable. Group buyers can have more bargaining option. Surrounding
SMV Layout Prices are around Rs. 3,500 to Rs.4000. It will be a direct transaction with the landlord & No
mediators involved.
Since it doesn't have BBMP A khata or BDA Approval, Bank Loan is not available. After the
Registration, you can apply for the khata directly from BBMP. Those who can do full amount transaction
can revert back to me or mail me at msn1270@gmail.com.
Group Buying option near SMV Layout
Re: Group Buying option near SMV Layout
So is this a revenue site ?
How safe is it to buy a plot which doesnt have a Khata? We are seeing so many revenue sites in litigation.
Thanks.
Yash
How safe is it to buy a plot which doesnt have a Khata? We are seeing so many revenue sites in litigation.
Thanks.
Yash
Re: Group Buying option near SMV Layout
Revenue sites are entirely different segment.
Revenue sites are done in the Agricultural land without converting the land for residential or commercial purpose.
DC Converted sites doesn't come under Revenue site category. These layouts doesn't have approval only b'cos they are not formed as per by-law made by BBMP/BDA i.e. Minimum area must be some acres(not sure of exact size), Up to 49% of the total land can be used for residential purpose and remaining 51% to be used for providing common amenities i.e. road, park, RWH, STP, community facilities like Temple, School, Commercial activity for the layout....etc.
Out of the 7 CMC areas merged with BBMP few years back, majority of the sites comes under this category. There is also a direction from HC to BBMP to provide Khata for all these sites, whereas BBMP is still insisting for Betterment Charges before Issuing Khata to make some revenue from this. Two times BBMP came up with tariff Chart to regularize these sites. Both times, HC Rejected them siting unscientific and unreasonable amount. HC says already CMC's have given some basic amenities like Road, Drainage...etc and BBMP cannot charge them entire amount as though they are not giving these facilities from Scratch.
Moreover Governor is not signing the "Akrama-Sakrama" scheme just b'cos it was promoted by BJP Govt. Probably this time if Congress Govt comes to ruling, Governor will sign it with minor modifications, which allows all these sites to get Khata from BBMP.
Revenue sites are done in the Agricultural land without converting the land for residential or commercial purpose.
DC Converted sites doesn't come under Revenue site category. These layouts doesn't have approval only b'cos they are not formed as per by-law made by BBMP/BDA i.e. Minimum area must be some acres(not sure of exact size), Up to 49% of the total land can be used for residential purpose and remaining 51% to be used for providing common amenities i.e. road, park, RWH, STP, community facilities like Temple, School, Commercial activity for the layout....etc.
Out of the 7 CMC areas merged with BBMP few years back, majority of the sites comes under this category. There is also a direction from HC to BBMP to provide Khata for all these sites, whereas BBMP is still insisting for Betterment Charges before Issuing Khata to make some revenue from this. Two times BBMP came up with tariff Chart to regularize these sites. Both times, HC Rejected them siting unscientific and unreasonable amount. HC says already CMC's have given some basic amenities like Road, Drainage...etc and BBMP cannot charge them entire amount as though they are not giving these facilities from Scratch.
Moreover Governor is not signing the "Akrama-Sakrama" scheme just b'cos it was promoted by BJP Govt. Probably this time if Congress Govt comes to ruling, Governor will sign it with minor modifications, which allows all these sites to get Khata from BBMP.
Re: Group Buying option near SMV Layout
There are 2 Key differences between BDA approved/BDA sites and DC Converted sites. With BDA approved/BDA sites that have Khata from BDA, the layout is "supposed" to be developed, hence there is no need to pay development charges. With DC converted, Grama Thana, Revenue sites, the layout may or may not be "developed", hence one needs to pay the government "development charges". The second difference between BDA sites/BDA approved sites and DC Converted sites is that if for any reason, the site is lost due to acquisition by a government agency, the BDA site owner becomes eligible for an alternate site.
One has to shell down hard cash for a DC Converted site. In view of all the above, a DC converted site would go at a discount. 2700 Rs per sft for cash payment and group purchase has ample scope of negotiation.
One has to shell down hard cash for a DC Converted site. In view of all the above, a DC converted site would go at a discount. 2700 Rs per sft for cash payment and group purchase has ample scope of negotiation.
Re: Group Buying option near SMV Layout
tvsh
Your second point is not correct. I feel you have wrong perception or misguided by someone. In my own known circle, two of my
X-colleagues who bought similar sites made by a Reddy landlord in 2001 near thanisandra, were acquired by BDA for Arkavathy
Layout and have applied for alternate sites as per the BDA instructions.
Only difference is the owner of the BDA site acquired gets eligibility to get replacement site in any of the existing BDA layouts.
Even in this case, people went to HC for many years to get their rights. Whereas the later part owner gets Site only when BDA
makes new layout.
Your second point is not correct. I feel you have wrong perception or misguided by someone. In my own known circle, two of my
X-colleagues who bought similar sites made by a Reddy landlord in 2001 near thanisandra, were acquired by BDA for Arkavathy
Layout and have applied for alternate sites as per the BDA instructions.
Only difference is the owner of the BDA site acquired gets eligibility to get replacement site in any of the existing BDA layouts.
Even in this case, people went to HC for many years to get their rights. Whereas the later part owner gets Site only when BDA
makes new layout.
Re: Group Buying option near SMV Layout
The point is while anyone can apply for an alternate site, the chances of getting it is very remote if you are the owner of a non-BDA approved site as the number of applicants are very high and the availability very low. For all practical reasons, you can forget getting an alternate site if you loose your Non-BDA approved site.msn1270 wrote:tvsh
Your second point is not correct. I feel you have wrong perception or misguided by someone. In my own known circle, two of my
X-colleagues who bought similar sites made by a Reddy landlord in 2001 near thanisandra, were acquired by BDA for Arkavathy
Layout and have applied for alternate sites as per the BDA instructions.
Only difference is the owner of the BDA site acquired gets eligibility to get replacement site in any of the existing BDA layouts.
Even in this case, people went to HC for many years to get their rights. Whereas the later part owner gets Site only when BDA
makes new layout.
Re: Group Buying option near SMV Layout
I don't see difference for BDA plot owners, who are also facing the similar way of treatment by BDA. Simple reason is, BDA will have corner sites, odd dimension or commercial sites or sites meant for G Category. They allot them only on political motives, not for general public for XYZ reasons.
Recent event is Disappearance of 57 sites allotted for State/Central Government/defence service people at Sir M. V Layout. Even another instance in Arkavathy Layout where the allotted site area was denotified for a real estate developer without even informing the allottees.
I see atleast 5-10 such cases in a month in media, where HC or any other court slaps serious allegations on BDA for deficiency of their service in providing
rights for a Site owner. This is just the attitude of the concerned authority. Nothing more. Read the attached news of an owner who lost her site in
Nandini layout allotted by BDA itself way back in 1984. She is struggling in HC to get an alternate site. If BDA site owners have special previlege, why
she had to approach HC for getting her right ????
http://www.bangaloremirror.com/index.as ... 348364de17
Posted On Thursday, January 24, 2013 at 06:41:04 AM
The BDA’s high-handed treatment of a site owner came in for severe criticism by the High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday. The agency was given a 24-hour deadline to find an alternative site for the site owner in the same area failing which officials would have to pay from their pockets.
Dhakshayini, 41, owned a 30x40 ft site in Nandini Layout. This was an alternative site provided to her after her original allotment in 1984 was caught in a BDA imbroglio. In 2012, Dhakshayini, a weaver, found her site along with four other adjoining ones had been taken over by the BDA overnight. The civic agency had planned an ‘economically weaker section’ (EWS) project on her site. The BDA had failed to follow any procedure in acquiring the site.
After failing to elicit a proper response from the BDA, Dhakshayini approached the HC. In Oct 2012, when the matter came up for hearing, the BDA ounsel had said he had received instructions from the BDA deputy secretary that Dhakshayini's case was under consideration. Meanwhile, Dhakshayini had obtained details of BDA sites in the area through RTI and sought one of them as an alternative. The court directed consideration of this plea.
However, the BDA took its own time. On Oct 31, 2012, the court ordered, “In spite of time having been granted to respondent to state as to whether the petition could be disposed of summarily in the light of circumstances that are evident, learned Counsel for respondent seeks further time.”
When the matter came up again on Wednesday, the court made its displeasure with the BDA very clear. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy said, “You have usurped the site of a poor lady. You deserve to be punished. If you have guts, show it before the court and not on someone who cannot defend themeselves. You should have the minimum courtesy of informing her before taking over the site. You could have acquired the site after following procedure.Who are you to take over the site. What is your statutory powers to go and pick up sites for some dubious purposes. Ask your conscience if you are doing the right thing. You have the right only if you follow procedure.“
The woman had produced RTI documents which showed there were three sites belonging to the BDA in the same area and sought to be provided with one of them. The BDA counsel said it has to decide on which site to give her.
The court said that promising an alternate site somewhere is not done. “Will you give a site in Indiranagar? Will you give her an 80x140 site instead? You throw her out and say take what I give. See the audacity. I will show you who has powers.” The court said the BDA has to decide within 24 hours which of the three other sites in the area it would give her. If there is a difference in value, the woman would pay. The case will be decided on Thursday.
Recent event is Disappearance of 57 sites allotted for State/Central Government/defence service people at Sir M. V Layout. Even another instance in Arkavathy Layout where the allotted site area was denotified for a real estate developer without even informing the allottees.
I see atleast 5-10 such cases in a month in media, where HC or any other court slaps serious allegations on BDA for deficiency of their service in providing
rights for a Site owner. This is just the attitude of the concerned authority. Nothing more. Read the attached news of an owner who lost her site in
Nandini layout allotted by BDA itself way back in 1984. She is struggling in HC to get an alternate site. If BDA site owners have special previlege, why
she had to approach HC for getting her right ????
http://www.bangaloremirror.com/index.as ... 348364de17
Posted On Thursday, January 24, 2013 at 06:41:04 AM
The BDA’s high-handed treatment of a site owner came in for severe criticism by the High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday. The agency was given a 24-hour deadline to find an alternative site for the site owner in the same area failing which officials would have to pay from their pockets.
Dhakshayini, 41, owned a 30x40 ft site in Nandini Layout. This was an alternative site provided to her after her original allotment in 1984 was caught in a BDA imbroglio. In 2012, Dhakshayini, a weaver, found her site along with four other adjoining ones had been taken over by the BDA overnight. The civic agency had planned an ‘economically weaker section’ (EWS) project on her site. The BDA had failed to follow any procedure in acquiring the site.
After failing to elicit a proper response from the BDA, Dhakshayini approached the HC. In Oct 2012, when the matter came up for hearing, the BDA ounsel had said he had received instructions from the BDA deputy secretary that Dhakshayini's case was under consideration. Meanwhile, Dhakshayini had obtained details of BDA sites in the area through RTI and sought one of them as an alternative. The court directed consideration of this plea.
However, the BDA took its own time. On Oct 31, 2012, the court ordered, “In spite of time having been granted to respondent to state as to whether the petition could be disposed of summarily in the light of circumstances that are evident, learned Counsel for respondent seeks further time.”
When the matter came up again on Wednesday, the court made its displeasure with the BDA very clear. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy said, “You have usurped the site of a poor lady. You deserve to be punished. If you have guts, show it before the court and not on someone who cannot defend themeselves. You should have the minimum courtesy of informing her before taking over the site. You could have acquired the site after following procedure.Who are you to take over the site. What is your statutory powers to go and pick up sites for some dubious purposes. Ask your conscience if you are doing the right thing. You have the right only if you follow procedure.“
The woman had produced RTI documents which showed there were three sites belonging to the BDA in the same area and sought to be provided with one of them. The BDA counsel said it has to decide on which site to give her.
The court said that promising an alternate site somewhere is not done. “Will you give a site in Indiranagar? Will you give her an 80x140 site instead? You throw her out and say take what I give. See the audacity. I will show you who has powers.” The court said the BDA has to decide within 24 hours which of the three other sites in the area it would give her. If there is a difference in value, the woman would pay. The case will be decided on Thursday.
Re: Group Buying option near SMV Layout
You are seeing the difference right here in the story presented by you. The BDA is as they are. In case of BDA site, the owner could go to court and get an alternate site. In this case, the court is making sure the owner is getting an alternate site. If it were a NON-BDA site acquired by BDA for the same cause, then the same owner would not have a strong case. If a title deed is issued by BDA, BDA has moral and legal obligation to make good on any defect. When one purchases a non-BDA site, the liability of making good the loss of site is on the developer of the layout and not BDA. That is the key reason for BDA site owner to have a stonger legal case.msn1270 wrote:I don't see difference for BDA plot owners, who are also facing the similar way of treatment by BDA. .
One of my friend's Non-BDA site (which was purchased in 1992) got acquired by in 2002 for the formation of Sir M V layout. So far after 10 years, he has not even been able to get an alternate site. So even after 20 years, he does not have a site.
My point is there will always be lapses from BDA as it is a corrupt organization. The chances of getting an alternate site, if one was a owner of a BDA site is lot higher than being a owner of a Non-BDA site.
Re: Group Buying option near SMV Layout
I just want end this thread & dont want to deviate from the original topic. Two things we can see in procedure. Rest all individual perceptions.
if an agricultural land is acquired, owner gets a compensation in the ratio of 60:40 in the developed land(earlier it was cash compensation & a site).
Hence in case of non-Dc converted site acquisition by BDA, the land owner gets the compensation.
If a DC Converted Land is acquired, The Site owner gets a replacement site, when BDA makes new layout.
As such BDA has not done any layouts after 2003(arkavathy still formally not cleared for allottees), there is a great delay for those who lost their sites to get a replacement site.
Acquisition can happen for any layout. Those who can afford Rs. 4000+ for BDA Layouts, they prefer it. Those who can't afford, settle for Private layouts. It all depends on individuals.
if an agricultural land is acquired, owner gets a compensation in the ratio of 60:40 in the developed land(earlier it was cash compensation & a site).
Hence in case of non-Dc converted site acquisition by BDA, the land owner gets the compensation.
If a DC Converted Land is acquired, The Site owner gets a replacement site, when BDA makes new layout.
As such BDA has not done any layouts after 2003(arkavathy still formally not cleared for allottees), there is a great delay for those who lost their sites to get a replacement site.
Acquisition can happen for any layout. Those who can afford Rs. 4000+ for BDA Layouts, they prefer it. Those who can't afford, settle for Private layouts. It all depends on individuals.
-
deenabasappa
- Posts: 3
- Joined: July 23rd, 2013, 3:02 pm
Re: Group Buying option near SMV Layout
HI, please help me out with this problems. We have bought site in Kengeri Satellite town stage 1 in 2006 and now we want to build a house in the same plot , when we pulled RTC, it says that the owner of the property from 200-2001 till 2013 is BDA, what should we do now…how to go about it.
please advice me on the same.
please advice me on the same.