Corporation reclaims OSR lands worth Rs 50 cr

SOURCE :TNN, Sep 9, 2010, 12.38am IST

CHENNAI: The Chennai Corpoporation on Wednesday took over 23 grounds of land reserved for open spaces in two major IT parks in Guindy. The current market price of the land reclaimed by the corporation is Rs 50 crore.




Mayor M Subramanian, who represents area in the elected council, led a team of officials in establishing the ownership rights of the lands at Olympia Tech Park and Thamarai Tech Park on Jawaharlal Nehru Salai and SIDCO Street respectively in Guindy. Notice boards proclaiming the Chennai Corporation's rights over the lands were installed on the sites.



"The 23 grounds of land will soon be put to public use by providing access to people, raising compound walls, creating walkways, adequate seaters and fountains," the mayor said.



As per development control rules, 10% of any property over 10,000 sq m in area that is developed will have to be reserved as open space. The gift deeds will have to be handed over to the Chennai Corporation through the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. "The local body will reclaim all open space reservation lands in the city within a month. There are around 700 grounds worth Rs 1,500 crore," Subramanian said.



In a bid to reclaim more OSR lands, the local body has targetted 96 multi-storeyed buildings that were given building permits recently. Vigilance personnel have been entrusted the task of identifying the lands that are scattered across the city.



In the past two years, 76 OSR lands have been reclaimed by the civic officials, including 16 during the month of July alone. In the last four years alone, the corporation is said to have taken over encroached and OSR lands worth Rs 3,000 crore.








 

Builders accused of selling flats twice, HC orders FIR

  





SOURCE :TNN, Aug 1, 2010,

CHENNAI: The Madras high court has directed the Rajamangalam police in the city to register criminal cases against three persons who had developed a housing project but allegedly sold the flats twice by creating false documents.



Justice CT Selvam, allowing the criminal original petitions of P Srinivasulu of Sowcarpet and B Balaji of Villivakkam, asked the inspector of Rajamangalam to register an FIR against A Ramesh, who claimed to be working in the commercial tax department, his wife Hamsalatha and land owner Ekambaram of Villivakkam.



"The petitioner has sought a direction to the inspector to register FIR on the complaint dated July 1, 2010 lodged by him. A perusal of the petition and on hearing the submissions of the government advocate, this court considers it fit to direct the inspector to register a case, investigate and act in accordance with law," the judge said.



Earlier, S Prabakaran, counsel for the buyers, submitted that Srinivasulu first paid Rs 3.2 lakh towards the undivided share of land, and then paid another Rs 15.5 lakh on various dates for construction of the flat. Ramesh and Hamsalatha, claiming to possess the power of attorney of Ekambaram, executed the sale deed and agreed to deliver the fully furnished flat in a month.



Similarly, the couple had collected Rs 3.2 lakh from Balaji for the undivided share of land, and then another Rs 12 lakh for the flat. Both Srinivasulu and Balaji had raised housing loans from banks.



The flats are is not ready as yet, as they were yet to be provided electricity and water connection, sump, water tank, drainage, compound wall, gate and other essential amenities. While so, in September 2009, an official from Dena Bank pasted a possession notice on the apartment complex, revealing the fact that the property had already been sold to one Sekar and Vijayalakshmi.



The petitioners rushed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal and obtained stay restraining the bank from dispossessing them. Later, when they lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional deputy commissioner of police, it was forwarded to Rajamangalam police station, which refused to register FIR, on the ground that it was civil dispute.



Prabakaran submitted that besides cheating the prospective buyers of the flats and committing breach of trust, the builders had abused and threatened the buyers.