Allot 'B' category site to former cricketer at 2008 price, HC tells BDA

Bengaluru-born Smitha Harikrishna, 47, was a member of the Indian women’s team in one-day internationals

The BDA must allot former cricketer Smitha Harikrishna a ‘B’ category site in Sir Vishveshwaraiah Layout at the price that prevailed in 2008, the year in which the allotment was made, a division bench of the high court has ruled, refusing to quash a single judge’s order.

A division bench headed by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma rejected the appeal filed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), calling its stand “shocking”.

Bengaluru-born Smitha, 47, was a member of the Indian women’s team in one-day internationals.

In 2008, the BDA decided to allot sites under the ‘B’ category as per Rule 5 of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984. Among the sportspersons who were chosen for the site allotment was Smitha in recognition of her services to the Indian women’s cricket team.

The BDA forgot about the allotment for years. It was only after Smitha’s representations in 2014, 2018 and 2019 that the BDA gave her the letter of a site allotment in Sir M Vishveshwaraiah Layout in July last year.

But there was a shocker. She had to pay Rs 77.22 lakh for the site. Smitha protested the high price but the BDA didn’t listen. She then moved the high court. In October 2020, a single judge quashed the allotment letter and directed the BDA to allot the site at the 2008 price.

The single bench also noted that in a similar case involving sportsperson Puttaswamy, the order directing the BDA to allot the site at the price that prevailed in 2008 had reached finality. It directed the BDA to allot Smitha a site measuring 50 feet X 80 feet in Sir M Vishveshwaraiah Layout if a site of that dimension is not available in any substantially developed layout.

The BDA appealed against the order.

During the hearing, the division bench was informed that the lease deed for the site was registered only in 2021. To this, the bench asked why the allotment made in 2008 was not given effect until 2021. The counsel for the BDA replied that the file had been misplaced.

‘Lame excuse’

“It is really shocking that a statutory body like BDA has come up with a lame excuse before this court that the file was missing,” the court said and lamented that because of the BDA staff’s laxity, a former international cricketer was asked to pay an exorbitant price for the site.

The bench refused to interfere with the single judge’s order and dismissed the BDA’s appeal.