Panel probe: Netas cornered prime plots

The findings of the probe reveal rampant illegalities and abuse of power

An inquiry into the allotment of alternative sites has exposed how the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) defied the Supreme Court and flouted its own rules.

The inquiry was conducted by the Supreme Court-appointed Justice A V Chandrashekar Committee in August and September this year. Its findings, submitted to the court on September 19, reveal rampant illegalities and abuse of power — many who benefited from the allotments are influential politicians.

From citing a non-existent court case to bypassing a statutory committee, the BDA did everything to break the rules and favour the rich and powerful. The probe was ordered by the Supreme Court after it learnt that the BDA was allotting prime sites to those seeking alternative sites, thereby causing massive financial loss to the BDA. The investigation, however, was restricted to alternative sites allotted in developed layouts, after the Supreme Court passed an order in October 2021.

Also Read | BBMP chief sets up task force to speed up pothole-filling

Of the 96 alternative site allotments since October last year, the committee did not scrutinse 28 in Arkavathi Layout and 38 in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout as they are not developed layouts.

Who got what?

Araga Jnanendra

The BJP politician and current home minister was allotted a ‘G’ category site (40 x 60 ft) in HSR Sector III in September, 2006. On his request, he was allotted a bigger alternative site (50 x 80 ft) in August, 2009. Without disclosing the reason in the file, the BDA allotted the 50x80 ft alternative site in RMV II Stage in December, 2021. The then deputy secretary had objected to it, and recorded in the files that allotment of an alternative site in RMV II Stage violated Rule 11 (A) of the Alternative Site Allotment Rules.

Basavaraj Patil Sedam

This BJP politician and former MP was allotted a ‘G’ category site in HSR Sector III (50x80 ft) in July, 2010. Subsequently, he was allotted an alternative site in RMV 2nd Stage in February, 2011. He had requested an alternative site on the grounds that the site first allotted to him was caught up in litigation. The BDA’s law officer, however, stated that no civil suit was pending in respect of site No 6, earlier allotted to him. The deputy secretary stated that the allotment violated Rule 11 (A). The engineering department had said on record that the site should be auctioned. Yet, the BDA went ahead and gave Sedam an alternative site.

Veeranna C Charanthimath

This BJP legislator from Bagalkot was allotted a ‘G’ category site (40x60 ft) in HSR Sector III in September, 2006. As the BDA had signed no lease-cum-sale agreement with him, it allotted an alternative site measuring 50x80 ft in RMV 2nd Stage in April, 2011. Citing litigation, the BDA allotted an alternative site in the same layout in February, 2022, flouting the Supreme Court’s directions. Officials approved this file even without bringing it to the notice of the Alternative Site Allotment Committee.

Dr M Nagaraj

Former member of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC), Nagaraj was allotted a 50x80 ft ‘G’ category site in Banashankari 6th Stage in November, 2009. On his request, the BDA gave him an alternative site in RMV 2nd Stage and executed a lease-cum-sale agreement in his favour in April, 2011, on the grounds that the earlier site was caught up in litigation. The BDA violated two rules: once the lease-cum-sale agreement is executed, severance takes place between the BDA and the allottees, and the BDA cannot provide an alternative site. The allotment also violates the Supreme Court’s October 2021 order.

B Ramareddy, R Geetha (transferee)

Ramareddy was allotted a 40x60 ft site in HSR Layout under the ‘G’ category, and got a possession certificate in December, 2009. After the government denotified the land on which this site was situated, Reddy’s daughter R Geetha requested the BDA to give her an alternative site. While Geetha was eligible for a site in the same layout or subsequent layout, the BDA went against its own rules to allot her a site in RMV 2nd Stage in January 2022. The file was not placed before the Alternative Site Allotment Committee either. Incidentally, Geetha is related to Jagadeesh Reddy, deputy secretary working in the urban development department and handles all files related to the BDA in his secretariat capacity.

Abhay Patil

This BJP legislator from Belagavi South was allotted a ‘G’ category stray site in JP Nagar VIII Stage in September, 2007. On his request, the BDA allotted an alternative site (50x80 ft) in April, 2010.

Subsequently, he got an alternative site (a second one) in RMV 2nd Stage in April, 2011. The lease-cum-sale agreement was executed in April, 2011. The BDA allotted the RMV 2nd Stage site in March, 2016.

Patil had requested an alternative site on the grounds that the site allotted to him was situated near a big drain. The request was processed in violation of the Supreme Court order.

Indira

An allottee called Indira, whose records are not available in public domain, got a stray site in OMBR Layout in January, 2007. On her request, she was given an alternative 50x80 ft site in RMV 2nd Stage. Citing litigation, Indira had requested an alternative site. The law officer pointed out that no litigation was pending in respect of the site she was first allotted. Ignoring the opinion of the law officer, the BDA approved the allotment.

--------------------------

‘G’ category sites: These sites are given to people in public life as determined by the state govt for a negligible amount. Such allotments were stuck down by the HC at least a decade ago following irregularities.

Alternative sites: These are allotted only when the mistake was on the part of the BDA or where the possession of sites allotted originally could not be given due to litigation or stay. These sites can be given in the same or subsequent layout.