Daily News and Views Online TV & Cyber media.

“Blunt and Sharp Daily News Portal” Thursday 15-01-2015 Portal Website with online news daily at: sunnytimes.in Mobile: 9945116476
==================================================================================================================================
M.S.Yatnatti : Editor and Video Journalist: D.V.Ramu News Reporter: Swarnamba .R.L Video Journalist and Reporter
===========================================================================================================

BDA ARKAVATHI LAYOUT SECOND FINAL

NOTIFICATION IS LEGALLY CORRECT

By : M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bangalore :As per the reported court orders second final notification is permissible under BDA Act . CM and BDA has done second final
notifications to correct their mistakes and help the farmers as per several court orders and request of farmers. Ultimately it is pertinent to note that legal de-notification helps farmers and no political party should
harm the interest of farmers. Framers curse is fallen on BDA as still several farmers have not got compensation and they are issuing fresh final notifications.. “There was always a difference in the area notified in the
preliminary notification and the final notification. This is the status all over the country. The objective of the preliminary notification is to indicate to the landowners and the general public that it is proposed to
acquire lands. It is this notification that empowers the land acquisition officer with the authority to inspect the lands in question” . Such difference in the extent of the land for which preliminary notification was
issued and finally acquired in nine layouts from 1978 to 2002 could be seen, if one goes by the BDA records. The difference between the two stages varied from 21 to 56 per cent. The stages in the land acquisition
process, the legal experts opine that it was absolutely legal to drop acquisition proceedings or de-notify lands at any stage and scheme can be re-modified any time and second final notification can be legally issued..

BDA can propose acquisition of land Under Section 17 of the B.D.A. Act by issuing preliminary notification and Government can issue under Section 19 of the B.D.A. Act final notification and BDA can any time
send modified scheme under section 18(3) of BDA act and Government can again issue final notification under Section 19 of the B.D.A. Act or court orders and reissued final notification supersedes earlier final
notification .Siddaraimaih the chief minister and Government did nothing illegal in re-issuing the final notification in respect of Arkavati Layout .Re-modification of scheme can be done and it can be done any
number of time and any number of time final notification can be done as per Section 19 of the B.D.A Act 1976. It is pertinent to note that Government re-modified scheme of the Arakavathi layout under section 18
(3) of the BDA Act and final notification of the re-modified scheme under section 19 (1) of the BDA Act gazetted on June 18, 2014 second time in respect of Arakavathi Layout for 1766 acres ( a little more or less)
were needed for the public purpose of formation of Arkavathi Layout. This is final notification issued second time and this notification is valid and earlier first final notification in respect of Arakavathi Layout
becomes invalid and the first final notification was issued by the State Government, under section 19(1) of the Act (published in the Karnataka Gazette on 23.2.2004

Not first time in history of BDA : such second final notifications were issued by earlier government also headed by different parties and government and it is not the first time that Second Final notification was issued
as per Section 19 of the B.D.A Act 1976 and it was not first time Siddaraimaih the chief minister and Government issued such second final notification. In respect of Banashankari Vth Stage, Jayaprakash Narayana
Nagar 8th Stage, Jayaprakash Narayana Nagar 9th Stage and Gnana Bharathi Layout second final notifications were issued. The proposal submitted by the BDA were considered by the Government and sanction
was accorded to all the schemes pursuant to which the modified schemes were approved under section 18 (3) of the BDA Act dated September 16, 1997, September 17, 1997 and October 6, 1997 came to be made in
respect of Banashankari Vth stage layout, J.P. Nagar 8th stage layout, J.P. Nagar 9th Stage layout and Gnanbharathi layout respectively. Second final notifications were published in the Gazette dated September 17,
1997, September 18, 1997, September 18, 1997 and October 6, 1997 respectively. After issue of second final notification BDA published public notices as per the gazette in news papers. It is very simple once second
final notification is issued earlier one get superseded. Government has all powers to modify the schemes and provide justice to farmers and now with the re-issue of final notification BDA should follow new land
acquisition Act clauses relating to compensation, relief and rehabilitation as The Land Acquisition Act 1894 stands repealed and replaced with The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act 2013”.BDA Land acquisition Department should treat all second final notification on par with each other and issue NOC based on it: Whichever land survey number does not appear in second
final notification for such survey number BDA must and should give NOC without any delay whether it is Arakavathi Layout or Banashankari Vth stage layout, J.P. Nagar 8th stage layout, J.P. Nagar 9th Stage
layout and Gnanbharathi layout respectively as It is very simple once second final notification is issued earlier one get superseded and stand cancelled without any reference to any court orders as they are not
applicable to new final notifications which is not subject matter of any other court orders and they are applicable to only preliminary notification .

Who control Land acquisition department: Land acquisition DC and land acquisition officers are helpless before Sri Krishna Murthy AEE Housing project. Because he calls the shots as he is controlling Rs 200
corore housing project and even Sham bhatt seems to be his slave as he fails to stop illegal tress pass of Sri Krishna Murthy AEE Housing project in S.No 101/2B Valgerahalli Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka
which does not feature in second final notification of GB Layout similar to second final notification of Arkavathi Layout. .. Sri Krishna Murthy AEE Housing project is facing Lokayukta case in 3026/2014. Let BDA
stop construction in S.No 101/2B Valgerahalli Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka & wait final outcome in OS NO 26334/2014 as status quo order was issued for both and vacated for both and it is not clear
Means both were asked to maintain status quo and now both are free not to maintain status quo which is technically impossible to implement and case is admitted in OS NO 26334/2014 and Lis is pending . Kengeri
police should restrict Sri Kishna Murthy AEE Housing project and stop construction if any carried out by Gowri construction. Sri Kishna Murthy AEE Housing project is in hurry and repeating same blunder what
housing division has committed in other similar cases and Sri Kishna Murthy AEE Housing project cares too hoots to the order of honourable MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY in WRIT PETITION NOS.
12962-12970 of 2012 (LA-BDA). Somehow he want to finish off the 200 core project and vanish from the place without caring rule of law and go back to his parent PWD department leaving BDA in deep financial
mess . Land acquisition officer has to defend in the court but here he himself has taken the responsibility of land acquisition officer and defending the case illegally. The land owner has filed WP in high court of
Karnataka. Let BDA wait for final outcome of the case and if BDA wins the case then finally it can do it its project any time. In a similar case by BDA housing department and same Gowri construction contractor
continued the work and completed the work during the pendency of the case but the case went against the BDA. BDA is not learning any lessen even though in similar case in the high court of Karnataka at
Bangalore in its order dated 14 th day of February 2014 by the honourable MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY in WRIT PETITION NOS. 12962-12970 of 2012 (LA-BDA) had allowed WP. It is also to be seen
that the BDA has plunged ahead with the project and erected building even during the pendency of this petition – unconscious of its folly or may be even brash indifference as to the consequences if any. It is not in
doubt that the petitions, however, would succeed in the light of the above infirmity and are accordingly allowed. The BDA was directed to put the petitioners in possession of lands of similar nature and extent as were
the subject matter of acquisition. This case should open the eyes of BDA.

Non-compliance of Karnataka Government Gazette attracts criminal provisions under section 188 & 166 and 166A of IPC. BDA Officers need to give legitimate respect to second final notification whether it is
Arkavathi Layout Gazetted on June 18, 2014 or Ganana Bharathi Layout Gazetted on October 06 1997 ”.Kengeri Police Inspector need to book FIR on complaint of M.Mahesh s/o Late Mahadevaiah against sri
Krishana Murthy AEE BDA Housing Sub-Division Mr Sham Bhat Commissioner BDA and BDA Security Guards & Task Force officials for Non-compliance of Karnataka Government Gazette attracts criminal
provisions as they are tress passing private property disrespecting Karnataka government Gazette UDD -629-MNX-97 DATED 06-10-1997 which prominently did not include the land in S.No 101/2B Valgerahalli
Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka Hence it is not a BDA Property and provide security to legitimate owner of the property. As Bangalore police are filing cases under IPC Section 188, which empowers the
police commissioner or a public servant to enforce a government order on a person, institution or management .Non-compliance attracts up to one-month jail term or a fine which may extend to Rs 200 or both. The
Karnataka government had issued the guidelines to schools following a spurt in assaults on children in the past couple of months. The Karnataka high court recently directed the government, city police and schools
to strictly implement the safety measures.BDA and Government issues two notifications for land acquisition under BDA Act and land acquisition Act. Under Section 17 of BDA Act BDA issues preliminary
Notification and under section 19 Government issues final notification in respect of notified land finally.. And Government has statutory power of re-issuing final notification any number of times under section 19 of
BDA Act. The old final notification is superseded by new final notification as old order get replaced by new order of Government .The court orders or proceeding’s in respect of old final notification are not
applicable to new final notification as new final notification is not subject matter of court proceedings. Wherefore all court orders applicable in respect of old final notification of Ganana Bharathi Layout and
Arkavathi Layout are not applicable to new final notifications of Ganana Bharathi Layout and Arkavathi Layout “Old schedule of old final notification get replaced with new schedule of new final notification as
preliminary notification remains same. BDA Officers need to give legitimate respect to second final notification whether it is Arkavathi Layout gazetted on June 18, 2014 or Ganana Bharathi Layout gazetted on
October 06 1997 as both notifications were issued under 19 (1) of the BDA Act. Several NOC have been issued by BDA Land acquisition officers in respect of the lands which do not feature in above two final
notifications to several land owners. The land acquisition officers are duty bound to issue NOC for all survey numbers which do not appear in Final notification of BDA issued by Government under section 19 (1) of
the BDA Act. Final notifications are final are not limited to anybody or any petitioners they are only limited to preliminary notifications and schedule of final notification .What is not featured in final notification
gets de-notified. At a time two final notifications cannot be in vogue .Earlier one gets superseded with new final notification. ..“In the similar manner Non-compliance of Karnataka Government Gazette attracts
criminal provisions. Request is made to Kengeri Police to book criminal cases under IPC Section 188, 168 A (Public servant disobeying directions under law) which empowers the police and public servant to enforce
a government order on a person, institution or management against Sri Krishana Murthy AEE BDA Housing Sub-Division Sri Sham Bhat Sri P.N.Naik EM BDA , Commissioner BDA for willfully disrespecting final
gazette notification UDD -629-MNX-97 DATED 06-10-1997 which prominently did not include the land in S.No 101/2B Valgerahalli Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka . Hence it is not a BDA Property. BDA is
giving respect to second final notification of Arkavathi Layout gazetted on June 18, 2014 and where as Sri Krishana Murthy AEE BDA is fighting case illegally in OS 26334/2014 dated 09-10-2014 to maintain status
quo and disrespecting the second final Ganana Bharathi Layout gazetted on October 06 1997 and bypassing BDA Additional Land acquisition officer . Sri Krishana Murthy AEE BDA is not appointed as BDA
Additional Land acquisition officer. His personnel interest in the case is itself is proof of corruption. Non-compliance of Karnataka Government Gazette attracts up to one-month jail term or a fine which may extend
to Rs 200 or both under 166 and 166A and Non-compliance of Karnataka Government Gazette attracts up to 6month to 2 year jail term or a fine both under 166 A for Public servant disobeying directions under
law .

BDA is not learning any lessen even though in similar case in the high court of Karnataka at Bangalore in its order dated 14 th day of February 2014 by the honourable MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY in
WRIT PETITION NOS. 12962-12970 of 2012 (LA-BDA) had allowed WP and following exracts of important point can be read and they are sufficient to open the eys of BDA. Extract of the orders” It is claimed that
in view of several other order s passed in other writ petitions of land owners, the BDA had, after considering representations made by several land owners, a fresh final notification dated 16.9.1997 came to be issue
d. It is contended that the lands of the petitioners did not find place in the said notification. Pursuant to the judgment in WA 4950/1998, the government is said to have issued yet another final notification dated
7.10.1999. Even this notification, it is claimed, did not include the lands of the petitioners. Either way, the lands of the petitioners are not included in that final notification. If that were to be so, the question of the

=================================================================================================
 Page: 2; Daily News and Views on Property Matters and Political Matters, Online TV & Cyber media.
Thursday 15-01-2015 “Blunt and Sharp Daily News Portal” Portal Website with online news daily at: sunnytimes.in Mobile: 9945116476
=======================================================================
lands of the petitioners being included in any approved Scheme of the BDA does not arise. However , the petitioners have been threatened time and again by the BDA by making it appear as if, the lands of the
petitioner s were already acquired under the final notification dated 9.5.1984. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the lands of the petitioners do not form the subject matter of the second final
notification dated 16.9.1997 or the third final notification dated 7.10.1999. The lands of the petitioners have evidently not been acquired by the BDA or Government. In this view of the matter, the action of the BDA
in attempting to put up construction illegally in the lands of the petitioners or their earlier attempts to auction the property, are illegal and without the authority of law. The Mahazar, if any, sought to be drawn , is
by a Revenue Inspector and obviously, as has been the routine, some strange signatures said to be those of villagers, without any particulars, would be vaguely found in any such Mahazar prepared in the office of the
BDA, to falsely claim that BDA has taken possession. Moreover, when the lands of the petitioners do not form the subject matter of any final notification legally or factually, the question of the BDA passing any
award or claiming that they have taken possession of the said lands, does not arise. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate that the possession of the land was never taken in accordance
with the law. On the other hand the BDA has admittedly abandoned the implementation of the Scheme as originally envisaged in the formation of the layout . The large extent of land sought to be acquired was
whittled down to the extent of the petitioner’s lands only. It is theref ore claimed that the BDA has failed to substantially implement the Scheme and hence the rigour of Section 27 is attracted and the Scheme lapses.
Assuming that the Scheme pertaining to Banashankar i V Stage Layout was duly sanctioned – Section 19 of the BDA Act would permit alteration of the Scheme if an improve ment could be made in any part of the
Scheme. However, the pres ent situation would indicate that the BDA has utilised the land for an entirely independent project, while restricting the acquisition to the extent of the petitioners’ lands. This would be
wholly without authority of law. Viewed from that point of view, the acquisition proceedings stand vitiated. Delay and laches are not relevant having regard to the changed circumstances. It is also to be seen that the
BDA has plunged ahead with the project and erected building even during the pendency of this petition – unconscious of its folly or may be even brash indifference as to the consequences if any. As any consequent
loss is borne by the public exchequer. It is not in doubt that the petitions, however, would succeed in the light of the above infirmity and are accordingly allowed. The acquisition proceedings in so far as the
petitioners’ lands in terms of the impugned annexures are concerned, are quashed. The respondents are directed to put the petitioners in possession of lands of similar nature and extent as were the subject matter of
acquisition”

Final notifications are final notification in respect of acquisition of land by BDA and they are not limited to petitioners of court orders. Final notification is final and it applies to preliminary notification referred in
the final notification and It applies to Schedule thereto in the final notification (a little more or less) were needed for the public purpose of formation of Layout mentioned final notification. “ Old schedule of old final
notification get replaced with new schedule of new final notification as preliminary notification remains same .A new final notification was issued in respect of GB Layout UDD -629-MNX-97 DATED 06-10-1997 in
respect of Valagerahalli and Nagadevanhalii villages Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka and this is issued after re-modification of scheme for 183 acres (a little more or less) were needed for the public purpose
of formation of Ganana Bharathi Layout. The preliminary notification BDA/ALAO/A3/139/88-89 DATED 19-01-1989 is basis for 06-10-1997 final notification referred in the final notification. The final notification
UDD -629-MNX-97 DATED 06-10-1997 which prominently did not include the land in S.No 101/2B Valgerahalli Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka Hence it is not a BDA Property. Court orders not applicable
to 1997 and 2014 final notifications: The previous court orders applicable to old final notification of 1994 in respect of Ganana Bharathi Layout is not applicable to new final notification of 1997 as BDA used the
liberty given in BDA Act and liberty given in court order issued fresh final notification in the similar way the previous court orders applicable to old final notification of 2004 in respect of Arkavathi Layout is not
applicable to new final notification of 2014 as BDA used the liberty given in BDA Act and liberty given in court order issued fresh final notification. Fresh final notification are final word in respect of respective
layouts land acquisition. Irrespective of court orders whether the court orders are limited to petitioners or not the final Gazette notifications issued by Government under 19 (1) of the BDA Act are not limited to
petitioners of court orders and final Gazette notifications of land acquisitions issued are applicable to entire layout and all land owners whether they were petitioners or not and this cannot be disputed by BDA as
final gazette notifications are issued by Government under 19 (1) of the BDA Act and Government has power under BDA Act.. Once second final notification is issued first final notification becomes invalid as per
section 19 of the BDA Act. It is pertinent to note that Government re-modified scheme of the Arakavathi layout under section 18 (3) of the BDA and final notification of the re-modified scheme under section 19 (1) of
the BDA Act gazetted on June 18, 2014 second time in respect of Arakavathi Layout for 1766 acres (a little more or less) were needed for the public purpose of formation of Arkavathi Layout. This is final notification
issued second time and this notification is valid and earlier first final notification in respect of Arakavathi Layout becomes invalid and the first final notification was issued by the State Government, under section
19(1) of the Act (published in the Karnataka Gazette on 23.2.2004 stating that sanction had been granted for the scheme and declaring that the lands specified in the Schedule thereto in all 2750 acres (a little more or
less) were needed for the public purpose of formation of Arkavathi Layout. In the similar way second final notification was issued in respect of GB Layout UDD -629-MNX-97 DATED 06-10-1997 in respect of
Valagerahalli Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka and this is issued after re-modification of scheme for 183 acres (a little more or less) were needed for the public purpose of formation of Ganana Bharathi
Layout making earlier final notification in respect of GB Layout becomes invalid and all proceedings done on earlier final notification HUD/483/MNX/91 dated 19-01-1994 becomes invalid and non est. Irrespective
of court orders in respect of GB Layout whether the court orders are limited to petitioners or not the second final Gazette notifications of land acquisitions issued are applicable to entire layout and all land owners
and this cannot be disputed by BDA as final gazette notifications are issued by Government under 19 (1) of the BDA Act and this as per law after re-modified scheme of GB Layout under section 18 (3) of the BDA
Act. Government has specifically admitted that final notification has been quashed as per orders passed in WP No 16827-34/1994 dated 7-10-1997 and they re-examined considered and decided the issue afresh and
there after they have proposed to re-acquire the said lands in the present Final Notification UDD -629-MNX-97 DATED 06-10-1997 which prominently did not include the land in S.No 101/2B Valgerahalli Kengeri
Hobli Bangalore South Taluka Hence it is not a BDA Property. Once the new second final notifications are issued the court orders are not applicable to second final notifications which supersedes earlier final
notification.It is pertinent to note that in WP No 16827-34/1994 dated 7-10-1997 and other court orders in respect of 1994 final notification which was quashed in as so for the petitioners land were concerned but it is
still pertinent to note that Government of Karnataka using the liberty of court order issued the second final notification UDD -629-MNX-97 DATED 06-10-1997 to entire G B layout without limiting it to petitioners
land who had approached court and Government de-notified the lands of other owners who had not gone to court using the same power under section 17(1) of BDA Act and issued second final notification was issued
in respect of GB Layout UDD -629-MNX-97 DATED 06-10-1997 in respect of Valagerahalli Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka and this is issued after re-modification of scheme for 183 acres (a little more or
less) were needed for the public purpose of formation of Ganana Bharathi Layout making earlier final notification in respect of GB Layout becomes invalid and all proceedings done on earlier 1994 notification
becomes invalid and non est. This cannot be disputed final Gazette notifications issued by Government under 19 (1) of the BDA Act are not limited to petitioners of court orders in any final notification . Even BDA
issued Public notice No BDA /ALAO/15/97-98 Dated 04-11-1997 reoffering 1989 preliminary notification and final notification UDD -629-MNX-97 DATED 06-10-1997 which did not include the land in S.No 101/2B
Valgerahalli Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka Hence it is not a BDA Property.The mahazar , if any sought be drawn is by a Revenue inspector and obviously ,as has been the routine ,some strange signatures
said to be of those villagers without any particulars ,would be vaguely found in any such mahazar prepared in the office of the BDA ,to falsely claim that BDA has taken possession . Moreover , when the land in S.No
101/2B Valgerahalli Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka do not form the subject matter of any final notification legally or factually ,the question of the BDA passing any award or claiming that they have taken
possession of the said land does not arise. It further pertinent to note that BDA has done nothing in the matter nor they have prepared plan for formation of Layout in S.No 101/2B Valgerahalli Kengeri Hobli
Bangalore South Taluka and BDA could not have taken possession of land and BDA failed to exercise its alleged right and right of land owners is revived and acquisition proceedings in view of non implementation
of scheme get lapsed forever .Mr Mahesh is requesting Kengeri Police for protection of his property and to stop tress pass in view of 111 ACMM Magistrate has already taken cognizance of an offence against BDA
on 16-08-2014 in PCR No 12777/2014 as per order sheet . The Hon’ble Judge has further posted matter for sworn affidavit once PCR is filed, to the effect that the Magistrate can, under section 190 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, before taking cognizance ask for investigation by the police under Section. 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the Magistrate can also, issue warrant for production before taking
cognizance. In the light of Supreme Court decisions, it must now be taken as settled law that the word "may" gives judicial discretion to the Magistrate to take cognizance of a police report or a complainant. This
was also the view expressed by the Law Commission in its report.BDA should to stop exhibiting the style of functioning in a dictatorial manner either without understanding the statutory provisions, law laid down in
a catena of decisions, violating rule of law or in utter ignorance of law.BDA cannot exercised powers illegally, arbitrarily and discriminately giving a go-bye to all norms, guidelines and principles required to be
scrupulously followed for taking possession of the acquired property, formation of layout and dispose of the sites either by way of allotment or sale of the same in accordance with the Rules framed by the State
Government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 38 of the BDA Act of 1976 (in short referred to as 'BDA Act').Problem start with notifications .Then it ends up with de-notification. It is BDA which does
blunders .It first notifies each survey number in a village .Without considering whether it is built up area or industry or converted land or nursery or school or college or temple or Mosque or church exists .This
happens because BDA Act does not Bar it to notify. I have seen BDA preliminary notifications which are included every survey number. There are detailed rules for site allotment .But no rules have been published
for what lands have to be acquired and what lands cannot be acquired by BDA .Because of this lacuna in law and legislation BDA notifies everything and then start de-notification business and this is root cause of
alleged unlimited corruption in BDA. Instead of debating de-notification first Legislate: Make amendment in BDA Act 1976.Clearly define what lands can be acquired by BDA and notified and what lands cannot be
acquired and for those lands what are not acquired how much development charges need to be collected from the owners or occupants .

CONSULTANCY HELP LINE

You may have problems with Government Departments PWD, BDA, BMRDA, KIADB, TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENTS AND
Development Authorities BBMP, Taluka office, D.C. Office, Corporation, K.S.R.T.C., Commercial Tax Offices, K.E.B., Pension problems,
Acquisitions of Land Problems , Khata, Bifurcation, Tax Revision. Banks Problems etc, which may be have been pending for months, and
years in Government files etc.

Everybody is facing Problems, Problems?

Kindly write to us, we analyze and convince ourselves and if appropriate then we will take your problems, to concerned authorities,
ministries, i.e., through our news paper property politics and try to help you. We also provide consultancy and Liaison service on case to
case bases as per agreed terms and fees. Write your problems with Xerox copies,
M.S.Yatnatti , Editor and Video Journalist Consultant Mobile: 9945116476
E-Mail: msyatnatti@yahoo.com propertypolitics@gmail.com
E-Mail: msyatnatti@yahoo.com sunnytimes.in@gmail.com

================================================================================================================================
Online Daily News Portal Edited Printed Published and Owned By M.S YATNATTI (KPNUT) at No 677 Gurukrupa Gnana Bharathi Layout Valagerahally Kengeri –Bangalore: 560059
Editor –In –Chief M.S YATNATTI E-mail :sunnytimes.in@gmail.com Phone : 9945116476
Unsolicited material may not be returned. The opinion of writers are their own ,not our .We are not responsible for incorrect advertisement listings and .We do all we can
to ensure correctness ,but readers are advised to recheck with concerned establishment before entering into binding contract .No part of this publication should reproduced without our
written permission. Legal jurisdiction restricted to Bangalore only