Bengaluru: Karnataka Revenue Minister Krishna Byre Gowda says, Bangalore Development Authority acquired land in 1976 for the formation of a layout in the vicinity of Gangenahalli village which is very much in the heart of Bengaluru today... In 2007, a person - Rajshekharaiah, who seems to be a complete proxy and untraceable, who has no relation to the land in question, submitted a petition to the then CM HD Kumaraswamy, asking for identification of this land measuring 1.11 acres. We don't know who Rajshekharaiah is but we can conclusively say that he has nothing to do with the 1.11 acres under question or that family.
#BengaluruLandScam #LandGrabControversy #PhantomPetition #BangaloreDevelopment
#BengaluruLandScam #LandGrabControversy #PhantomPetition #BangaloreDevelopment
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Bangalore Development Authority acquired lands in 1976 for formation of a layout in the vicinity
00:12of Gangena Halli village, which is very much in the heart of Bangalore today. In the year
00:182007, a person by name Rajasekaraiyya, who seems to be a complete proxy, an untraceable
00:30person who has no relation to the land in question, submits a petition to Shri Kumar
00:40Swami, the then Chief Minister, asking for denotification of this land, measuring one
00:46acre, 11 Guntas. First thing is, this Rajasekaraiyya, we don't know who he is, but conclusively
00:55we can say this Rajasekaraiyya has nothing to do with the one acre, 11 Guntas under question
01:04or that family. So some random person gives a petition to Shri Kumar Swami, requesting
01:11for denotification. Immediately, Shri Kumar Swami, the then Chief Minister, asks that
01:18the file be put up to him. While officers put up the file, they write very clearly that
01:25this land has been acquired by BDA. At this stage, there is no scope for denotification.
01:33However, by then, the government of Shri Kumar Swami falls, then Shri Edu Rappaji comes.
01:41In the meantime, as soon as Shri Kumar Swami, when he was the Chief Minister, asks for the
01:47file to be put up, at the same time, Kumar Swami's mother-in-law enters into an agreement
01:56with the original landowners through a GPA arrangement for ownership of this property,
02:04one acre, 11 Guntas. In the meantime, Kumar Swami's government falls. Subsequently, Shri
02:11Edu Rappaji becomes Chief Minister. Edu Rappaji calls for this file. In the file, the then
02:19Principal Secretary, one by name Shri Jyoti Ramalingam, writes very clearly that this
02:28is a case where notification under 16.2 has been already issued and hence this is not
02:37a fit case for consideration for denotification. This is the recommendation of the then Principal
02:45Secretary, Urban Development Department. This file is put to the then Chief Minister,
02:50Shri Edu Rappaji, who by his own handwriting writes to denotify this land, despite in the
02:59file, the Principal Secretary having recorded very clearly, very unambiguously, very categorically
03:07that this cannot be considered for denotification, despite that Shri Edu Rappaji goes ahead and
03:14denotifies this land. As soon as this land is denotified, the land is purchased by Shri Kumar
03:21Swami's own brother-in-law. So, this is one acre, 11 Guntas, probably worth about 100 crore rupees
03:30in the heart of Bengaluru, which was acquired by BDA and as per the government records available,
03:38this acquisition was complete. However, with the collusion of Shri Kumar Swami and Shri Edu
03:46Rappa, this land was ultimately denotified and came to be in the possession of Shri Kumar
03:53Swami's family. So, this is a fraud committed on public interest. Shri Kumar Swamiji has been
04:01very vocal in demanding probity in public life, making all kinds of baseless allegations. Today,
04:10we ask Shri Kumar Swamiji, did you accept a petition from some non-existent Rajasekaraiya?
04:19Is it true that this Rajasekaraiya had nothing to do with the property in question? Is it true
04:27that as soon as you asked for the file to be put up, your mother-in-law entered into a GPA
04:33agreement for ownership of this land with the original owners of the land? Is it true that
04:41despite clear recommendation by the officers that this cannot be denotified, is it true that this
04:50was denotified? Is it true or not that your own brother-in-law ultimately came to be in
04:58possession of this land?