HC restrains BDA from auctioning intermediary sites

The high court has restrained the BDA from auctioning intermediary sites on a petition filed by an ex-serviceman. Intermediary sites are those under litigation but finally, the order would be in favour of the BDA.

Keroji Rao, a resident of Muthyalanagar, was allotted an intermediary site in Arkavathy Layout by the BDA in June 2006. The BDA executed a sale deed in his favour on July 4, 2007, and issued the possession certificate the same day. But on June 27, 2016, 10 years after the site allotment, the BDA issued a notice to Rao, informing that the site allotted to him has been cancelled. He moved the high court challenging the cancellation of the site allotment.

On June 17, 2020, the BDA issued a notification, announcing the auction of commercial, residential and intermediate sites. Rao filed another petition in the high court, contending that the BDA is “merrily” disposing of sites by ignoring the plight of hundreds of similarly placed citizens.

The petitioner argued that many citizens, including ex-servicemen, were waiting for the BDA to act on their application for allotment of sites. Not only did the BDA fail to act their applications, but it also didn’t do anything to address the grievances of citizens who lost their allotted sites due to the agency’s own negligence. Rao further contended that the auction of intermediary sites would benefit the privileged sections of society at the cost of the underprivileged.

Justice Krishna S Dixit accepted the arguments and restrained the BDA from auctioning the intermediary sites. “The petitioner, an ex-serviceman, is justified in having the apprehension that if all the intermediary sites pursuant to impugned rules are auctioned, the adjudication of the writ petition may face the issue of infructousness because of likely unconditional creation of third party interest. In view of that, the BDA is restrained from auctioning any intermediary sites pursuant to the impugned amendment to the rules in question till next date of hearing. However, this order shall not interdict auctioning of corner and commercial sites,” the bench ordered.