We read with interest the reply given by MUDA to the local media
concerning our recent press release on the MUDA notification calling for
applications from the public for allotment of sites in Lalitadri Nagar,
R.T. Nagar and Chamalapura. MUDA claims this reply clarifies the points
raised in our press release. It also implies that our complaints are
baseless. We take exception to both these statements.
In its "clarification", MUDA has not answered any of the points
raised by us or gives misleading answers to our points. To make this
claim clear, we reproduce our points and MUDA's "clarifications".
1. The announcement does not commit to any specific dates for
allotment of sites or for refund of the initial deposit to
non-allottees. Since it states that the initial deposit will not earn
any interest, it is easy to infer the intentions of MUDA. Huge sums of
public money will earn interest to MUDA at the expense of the public.
To this objection, MUDA has answered that "After the completion
of the allotment process, the EMD amount of unsuccessful aspirants will
be returned soon." It also says that "the accusation that MUDA has been
reaping benefit out of the interest on crores of rupees of money
collected from the site aspirants is baseless".
Even in this "clarification", MUDA does not commit to any return
date for the deposits (other than "soon"). It also does not refute the
point that it will not pay interest on the deposit. The refusal to pay
interest will earn huge amounts for MUDA. It has been reported that
about 100,000 applications have been received by MUDA for the three
layouts. Assuming that the average cost of a site is Rs. 3 lakhs, each
applicant would have paid a deposit of Rs. 30,000. So MUDA has collected
Rs. 300 crores in deposits and even if it returns them after one year,
it would have earned RS. 30 CRORES as interest on the deposits.
2. The guideline paper issued along with the application form does
not show any map of the place and the extent of the readiness of the
sites, roads,ÿelectricity, water and UGD lines, etc. So the public have
no way of knowing when the sites will be ready.
MUDA has chosen not to reply to this point.
3. Item 17 of the rules and regulations states that allotment at
R.T.Nagar will be considered for only those who have applied for both
R.T.Nagar and Lalitadri Nagar. Therefore, people who want sites at
R.T.Nagar will have to apply for both places with separate ÿinitial
deposits. So MUDA gets double the deposit it would otherwise have
gotten. This appears to be an unfair trade practice.
In its "clarification", MUDA says "...the applicants who have
made the maximum number of attempts, have voluntarily applied separately
for R.T.Nagar and Lalithadrinagar Layouts and remitted the appropriate
EMD."
When Item 17 of the rules and regulations states that allotment
at R.T.Nagar will be considered for only those who have applied for both
R.T.Nagar and Lalithadri Nagar, applicants for R.T. Nagar have to
compulosily apply for both R.T. Nagar and Lalithadrinagar. Why is MUDA
misleading the public saying that they are "voluntarily" applying
separately?
4. An affidavit form has been given, but there are no instructions
that it should be submitted on stamp paper (I was told orally that it
should be on Rs. 20 stamp paper) and notarized. Omitting the stamp paper
and not notarizing the affidavit may itself become a reason for
rejection of application!
5. The affidavit asks the applicant to affirm "I and my family
members are residing at the above address and it is a rented house and I
am paying a monthly rent of Rs......" What if a person is not paying
any rent but otherwise is eligible for allotment of site under MUDA?
6. It is required that the Domicile Certificate should be signed by
an "Administrative officer with seal". Can any administrative officer of
any organization sign it? Getting it signed by any administrative
officer may again itself become a reason for rejection of application!
MUDA has not answered these last three points.
As we have said in our original press release, MUDA being a
statutory body, should be more responsible.
Its clarifications are seem
to be as misleading as its original announcement for site applications!
In addition, MUDA does not give details of what quality of
infrastructure (roads, footpaths, storm water drains, electricity,
water, UGD, etc.) it is providing. It is supposed to provide good
quality infrastructure before selling the sites, but in many cases, it
does not provide the infrastructure many years later, when it is ready
to hand over the layout to MCC.
Prof. B.S. Shankara, Mysore Grahakara Parishat