Hi,
It is incredible that a series of holders of constitutional positions ( Judges of Highcourt / Judges of Supreme court ) have knowingly or otherwise violated laws ( which they interpret day in & day out ) to obtain sites in Bangalore.
URL of the newspaper report ( which appeared in today's online edition of paper DNA )
http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/repor ... ce_1615007
Larger question is that : Were there any quid pro quo in all these trasactions?
What is the solution now ? Will the Judges simply surrender their site to escape further legal actions ? Will the system ( executive / legislature / judiciary ) take stern action against them so that it acts as a deterrent.
Bangalore site allotment scam: Multiple violations come to t
Re: Bangalore site allotment scam: Multiple violations come
Bangalore site allotment scam: Multiple violations come to the surface
Published: Sunday, Nov 20, 2011, 10:08 IST
By Team DNA | Place: Bangalore
It’s not just the eligibility criteria that at least 82 sitting and retired judges of the Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court violated when they were allotted sites by the Karnataka Judicial employees House building Co-operative Society — documents in DNA’s possession point to a whole range of other violations too
The violations include owning multiple sites, breaching the society’s bye-law clause mandating a stipulated number of years of living within Bangalore Development Authority’s (BDA’s) jurisdiction to be eligible for site allotment, sale deed violation, cornering civic amenities sites, and irregularities pertaining to breach of the spirit of cooperative societies and acquiring sites at rock bottom prices
It has already been established that judges in the upper judiciary (high courts and Supreme Court) are constitutional authorities and not ‘employees’ of the Judicial Department; and therefore not eligible for allotment of sites. Articles 217, 233 and 234 of the Constitution make it clear that Supreme Court and High Court judges, and judges of the subordinate judiciary hold constitutional posts and hence there is no question of treating them as ‘employees’ of the state judicial department.
However, according to Section 10 (a) of the Society bye-laws, an allottee should not have any other residential property in Bangalore or be given multiple allotments by the Society. (This rule is also applicable to persons applying for sites from the Bangalore Development Authority). Many of the judges owned residential properties prior to the allotment. In fact, even as genuine members of the society waited endlessly for their allotment, some judges were made multiple allotments by the society.
The documents indicate that those in violation of section 10 (a) of the society’s bye-laws include retired Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court and Bharatiya Janata Party Rajya Sabha member, M Rama Jois, sitting Supreme Court judge Justice HL Dattu, former Chief Justice of India, MN Venkatachalaiah, retired Supreme Court judge and former Karnataka Lokayukta Shivaraj V Patil, and retired Supreme Court Judge RV Raveendran, among others.
Section 10 (b) and 10 (c) of the Society’s bye-laws state that members should have spent at least five years working in the judicial department, and should have lived in the ‘territorial jurisdiction’ of the society for not less than 10 years.
The ‘territorial jurisdiction’, in this society is limited to BDA limits.
Those in violation of this law include retired Supreme Court judge GT Nanavati (who headed the Commission of Inquiry into the post-Godhra riots), retired Supreme Court judges S Mohan and P Venkatarama Reddy, and sitting Supreme Court judge Justice Tirath Singh Thakur.
Each sale deed states that an allottee must not sell the site within 10 years of its purchase. The clause is imposed to prevent commercial use of the property. However, several judges have since sold the land allotted to them at prices several times higher than the price at which they bought them. The sale deed also stipulates that the site owners construct houses within two years of purchase. But several sites still lie vacant. More than 70% of the judges have violated these conditions, according to the documents.
Many sites given to judges are civic amenity sites, set aside to be handed over to the civic agencies to construct common infrastructure, such as parks, bus stops, playgrounds and shopping areas. At least eight of the sites on our list that have been allotted to judges are civic amenities sites.
If these are found to be actual violations of the law, there are also several improprieties—ethical and moral—surrounding the judges who bought the sites. The scant regard accorded to rules and regulations of housing societies is hardly the kind of example expected of members of the higher judiciary, who are seen as the standard bearers of correct conduct in these matters. Two of the most glaring irregularities are breach of the spirit of cooperative societies and acquiring the sites at rock-bottom prices.
Housing cooperatives are given land at concessional rates to service those who are in real need of housing. The observation of the Supreme Court in Ishwar Nagar society Vs Parmanand Sharma in November 2010 was: “Cooperative societies are the best system which can suit the needs of poor and weaker sections… Thus, the cooperative societies like the present one, which seek to obtain the land at concessional rate from the government and to build houses, must necessarily have a limitation in that only members who are in real need of houses should be permitted to become members and take the benefit of land allotment.”
This observation serves to highlight the unethical manner in which judges of the higher courts acquired plots, setting a new low in moral conduct. It also stands to reason that the massive sites allotted to them, some larger than tennis courts, and the fact that they have left them vacant, do not indicate a need for a roof over their heads.
The most striking example is that of former Karnataka Lokayukta and retired Supreme Court Judge N Venkatachala, who has built, not a house, but a tennis court on the site allotted to him at a concessional rate.
In a city where rocketing land prices have made it difficult for even the middle class to purchase residential property, these judges were allotted the sites at shockingly low rates, ranging from Rs25 per sq ft to Rs240 per sq ft between 1994 and 2006. Land prices in this period were never below 1,000 per sq ft even in the mid-1990s.
The current market rate is more than Rs4,500 per sq ft. The state government granted the land for the Society specifically for a “public purpose”, namely, to provide subsidised housing for those who do not own property and cannot afford to buy it at market rates.
Published: Sunday, Nov 20, 2011, 10:08 IST
By Team DNA | Place: Bangalore
It’s not just the eligibility criteria that at least 82 sitting and retired judges of the Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court violated when they were allotted sites by the Karnataka Judicial employees House building Co-operative Society — documents in DNA’s possession point to a whole range of other violations too
The violations include owning multiple sites, breaching the society’s bye-law clause mandating a stipulated number of years of living within Bangalore Development Authority’s (BDA’s) jurisdiction to be eligible for site allotment, sale deed violation, cornering civic amenities sites, and irregularities pertaining to breach of the spirit of cooperative societies and acquiring sites at rock bottom prices
It has already been established that judges in the upper judiciary (high courts and Supreme Court) are constitutional authorities and not ‘employees’ of the Judicial Department; and therefore not eligible for allotment of sites. Articles 217, 233 and 234 of the Constitution make it clear that Supreme Court and High Court judges, and judges of the subordinate judiciary hold constitutional posts and hence there is no question of treating them as ‘employees’ of the state judicial department.
However, according to Section 10 (a) of the Society bye-laws, an allottee should not have any other residential property in Bangalore or be given multiple allotments by the Society. (This rule is also applicable to persons applying for sites from the Bangalore Development Authority). Many of the judges owned residential properties prior to the allotment. In fact, even as genuine members of the society waited endlessly for their allotment, some judges were made multiple allotments by the society.
The documents indicate that those in violation of section 10 (a) of the society’s bye-laws include retired Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court and Bharatiya Janata Party Rajya Sabha member, M Rama Jois, sitting Supreme Court judge Justice HL Dattu, former Chief Justice of India, MN Venkatachalaiah, retired Supreme Court judge and former Karnataka Lokayukta Shivaraj V Patil, and retired Supreme Court Judge RV Raveendran, among others.
Section 10 (b) and 10 (c) of the Society’s bye-laws state that members should have spent at least five years working in the judicial department, and should have lived in the ‘territorial jurisdiction’ of the society for not less than 10 years.
The ‘territorial jurisdiction’, in this society is limited to BDA limits.
Those in violation of this law include retired Supreme Court judge GT Nanavati (who headed the Commission of Inquiry into the post-Godhra riots), retired Supreme Court judges S Mohan and P Venkatarama Reddy, and sitting Supreme Court judge Justice Tirath Singh Thakur.
Each sale deed states that an allottee must not sell the site within 10 years of its purchase. The clause is imposed to prevent commercial use of the property. However, several judges have since sold the land allotted to them at prices several times higher than the price at which they bought them. The sale deed also stipulates that the site owners construct houses within two years of purchase. But several sites still lie vacant. More than 70% of the judges have violated these conditions, according to the documents.
Many sites given to judges are civic amenity sites, set aside to be handed over to the civic agencies to construct common infrastructure, such as parks, bus stops, playgrounds and shopping areas. At least eight of the sites on our list that have been allotted to judges are civic amenities sites.
If these are found to be actual violations of the law, there are also several improprieties—ethical and moral—surrounding the judges who bought the sites. The scant regard accorded to rules and regulations of housing societies is hardly the kind of example expected of members of the higher judiciary, who are seen as the standard bearers of correct conduct in these matters. Two of the most glaring irregularities are breach of the spirit of cooperative societies and acquiring the sites at rock-bottom prices.
Housing cooperatives are given land at concessional rates to service those who are in real need of housing. The observation of the Supreme Court in Ishwar Nagar society Vs Parmanand Sharma in November 2010 was: “Cooperative societies are the best system which can suit the needs of poor and weaker sections… Thus, the cooperative societies like the present one, which seek to obtain the land at concessional rate from the government and to build houses, must necessarily have a limitation in that only members who are in real need of houses should be permitted to become members and take the benefit of land allotment.”
This observation serves to highlight the unethical manner in which judges of the higher courts acquired plots, setting a new low in moral conduct. It also stands to reason that the massive sites allotted to them, some larger than tennis courts, and the fact that they have left them vacant, do not indicate a need for a roof over their heads.
The most striking example is that of former Karnataka Lokayukta and retired Supreme Court Judge N Venkatachala, who has built, not a house, but a tennis court on the site allotted to him at a concessional rate.
In a city where rocketing land prices have made it difficult for even the middle class to purchase residential property, these judges were allotted the sites at shockingly low rates, ranging from Rs25 per sq ft to Rs240 per sq ft between 1994 and 2006. Land prices in this period were never below 1,000 per sq ft even in the mid-1990s.
The current market rate is more than Rs4,500 per sq ft. The state government granted the land for the Society specifically for a “public purpose”, namely, to provide subsidised housing for those who do not own property and cannot afford to buy it at market rates.