Whenever a person wants to change the land use of his site (from residential to commercial, from agricultural to residential, etc.), he has to obtain permission from MUDA. According to law, MUDA places an advertisement in the papers regarding the land use change and calls for objections. The proposal and the objections are then placed before a MUDA meeting and the recommendation of the meeting are sent to the state government for approval.
Most of these land use conversions are against the law, against orders of various courts and against public interest even though they comply with the above formalities. But now, even these formalities are being ignored. Here are two examples.
Two MUDA advertisements appearing on p.8 of Andolana of 1-9-09 state that they are corrections to two earlier MUDA land use change advertisements which appeared in Andolana on 6-6-09 and that "from agricultural zone to residential zone" which appeared in the earlier advertisements should be read as "from transport zone to residential zone".
There are several question marks about these advertisements.
1. Why did MUDA make such a fundamental mistake in the first ads?
2. Why do the ads of 1-9-09 not call for public objections as is usual for all land use changes?
3. The ads on 1-9-09 carry only the corrections and not any other details. Since they appeared three months after the original ads, should MUDA not issue the complete corrected ad and again ask for objections from the public?
4. There are six land use change advertisements in the 6-6-09 issue of Andolana and none of them have the same numbers as the corrected ads. Therefore, to which two ads do the corrections apply?
5. In light of issues 1 - 4 above, does it not appear that MUDA has deliberately conducted this charade to avoid public objections?
6. According to Sec. 14(a)(1) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, land use change can be effected ONLY WHEN SUCH CHANGES ARE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. The Supreme Court in Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B.S. Muddappa case (AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1902) has clearly stated that converting to what is beneficial to many (such as CA site) to what is beneficial to one person (such as residential or commercial site) is against public interest and hence should not be permitted. Why then is MUDA advertising an illegal land use change from Transport (CA) to Residential?
7. Are not CA sites under the control of MUDA? Why then are these sites in possession of private parties?
8. As the city expands, it needs more and more space for suburban bus stands, private bus stands, metro stations, ELRTS stations, etc. Such spaces have been provided for in the Comprehensive Development Plan for the city. But due to short-sightedness of MUDA, the city is losing them one by one. In 2001, MUDA changed the land use of 6 acres reserved for transport purposes on Bannur Road and allotted the land to a private developer, despite strenuous objections from the public. Now it is the turn of two more sites earmarked for transport. It is sad that MUDA is selling off the future of Mysore because of its short-sightedness. If this trend continues, twenty years from now, we will be having several reenactments of the JK grounds bus-stand controversy which is raging now, controversies which could have been easily avoided with a little more vision from MUDA.
Maj.Gen. (Rtd.) S.G. Vombatkere, President, Mysore Grahakara Parishat