The Hindu 16.12.2010
Government cannot direct BDA to allot ‘G’ category sites, says High Court
Staff Reporter
— File Photo: K. Gopinathan
‘G’ category refers to BDA sites that are meant to be allotted to
eminent personalities at the discretion of the Chief Minister.
BANGALORE: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday held that the State
Government cannot direct the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to
allot ‘G’ category sites in the city.
Justice S. Abdul Nazir passed the order on petitions by Raju and
others challenging a notice by the BDA cancelling the ‘G’ category sites
they had acquired.
The court quashed the notice and upheld the allotment of sites to Mr
Raju and others. It, however, directed the BDA to ensure that all future
allotment of sites under ‘G’ category were in compliance with BDA rules
and regulations.
It also ruled that the State Government did not have the power to direct the BDA to allot ‘G’ category sites.
The ruling is a blow to the State Government as it has been directing
the BDA to allot such sites to persons chosen by it. ‘G’ category
refers to BDA sites that are meant to be allotted to eminent
personalities at the discretion of the Chief Minister.
The case
In this case, Mr. Raju had approached the High Court after the BDA
decided to quash the allotment of a 50 x 80 ft site at HSR Layout. He
said he had purchased the site from Madhu Dhandoba in 2007 for Rs. 1.2
crore.
When the matter came up in court, the BDA advocate Basavaraj Sabrad
said the site was allotted to Kumar Bangarappa, son of the former Chief
Minister S. Bangarappa, on June 20, 2007 for Rs. 6 lakh. He said three
days after the site was allotted to him, Mr. Kumar Bangarappa sold the
site to Mr. Dhandoba for Rs. 85 lakh.
Mr. Dhandoba, in turn, sold the site to Mr. Raju five months later,
for Rs. 1.2 crore. Later, the BDA issued notice to Mr. Raju stating that
it wanted to cancel the allotment as the site itself was illegal.
When Justice Nazir sought to know how the allotment of the site to
Mr. Kumar Bangarappa could be illegal, the BDA said the site was
illegally carved out of a corner site and that it was not in the layout
plan.
The BDA said it realised the illegality much later. When it moved to
cancel the allotment, it found the original allottee had already sold
it.
