Hebbal MLA Narayanaswamy owned plot, not eligible for 'G' site: NGO

Complaint says legislator's wife too owned site in Bengaluru

Close on the heels of a complaint that Hebbal (BJP) MLA Y A Narayanaswamy had converted his ‘G’ category site into a commercial one, a fresh complaint has been filed with the Bangalore |Development Authority (BDA) and Urban Development Department questioning the allotment itself.

The complaint, filed by an NGO ‘Committee on Judicial Accountability’ (CJA), stated that the MLA and his wife owned sites in Bengaluru before the allotment of the ‘G’ category site in 2009.

The ‘G’ category site (number 1073 measuring 4,000 sq ft) was allotted to Narayanaswamy at HRBR Layout 1st Stage, 5th Block on November 4, 2009. The complaint stated that the allotment was in violation of rule 10(3) of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules 1984. The rule states that any person who or any dependent member of whose family, owns a site or a house or has been allotted a site or a house by the BDA or a co-operative society in the city or anywhere in the state, shall not be eligible for the allotment.

The affidavit submitted by Narayanaswamy to the Election Commission revealed that at the time of allotment of ‘G’ category site, Narayan­a­swamy’s wife B N Usha Nandini owned a property (number 461 measuring 5,000 sq ft) at 4th Main, Dollar’s Colony in RMV 2nd stage. The property was purchased in May 2009 for Rs 1.25 crore. Interestingly, the same address is provided by Narayanaswamy in the lease-cum-sale deed executed by the BDA for the ‘G’ category site.

This apart, documents available with Deccan Herald show that Narayanaswamy’s wife owned another self-acquired property in MSR Nagar. Besides, Narayanaswamy jointly owns a property with one S N Subba Reddy at survey number 89 (measuring 6,573 sq ft) at Shettigere in Jala hobli. This property was purchased in May 2007 for Rs 49 lakh and Narayanaswamy has 50% share.

“The rule 10(3) makes it clear that if any dependent member owns a site or a house they are ineligible for another allotment,” the complaint by the CJA stated. It added that when hundreds of poor people are awaiting BDA sites, allotting a site at a subsidised price to a person who is “powerful and mighty” and not eligible for an allotment as per BDA rules, defeats the purpose of the scheme and also violates article 14 of the Constitution.

When contacted, MLA Narayanaswamy said he was not aware of the BDA rules. “I did not know that a person who owned a self-acquired property, which is not allotted by BDA or co-operative society, is not eligible for allotment of a G category site.’’

While seeking allotment of the site, Narayanaswamy, in his letter on September 19, 2006, claimed that he was in need of his own residential house in Bengaluru to discharge his public duties.

First, BDA had allotted a site at 10th Block Banashankari 6th Phase.
However, Narayanaswamy, who was an MLC then, wrote to the principal secretary Urban Development Department on July 20, 2009, claiming that the site allotted to him was not suitable for residential purpose and asked for an alternative site at a location of his choice. Subsequently, within 10 days of the allotment in Banashankari, an alternative site was allotted to him at HRBR Layout.