Individuals can't apply for CA sites, rules High Court

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that an individual has no locus standi to apply for a civic amenities (CA) site.

Hearing a petition filed by Ponnappa, a resident of HMT Layout, challenging the allotment of a CA site to Mahila Dakshit Sangha (MDS), a women’s organisation, Justice A N Venugopala Gowda set aside the prayer of the petitioner to quash the allotment stating that under the BDA (allotment of CA sites) Rules 1989, only a registered co-operative society, or a registered trust, was entitled to apply for a CA site, and not any individual.

MDS was allotted a site measuring 4,000 sq feet (survey No 1) by HMT House Building Co-operative Society in the mid-1980s. The petitioner, a neighbour of the allottee, laid claim to the site stating that the marginal land next to his site belonged to him and the sale deed should be executed in his name.

Stating that the BDA had not followed the allotment rules, the petitioner submitted that the allotment of site to MDS was made based on the reference of the then chief minister, and urged the court to quash it.

 However, the court observed the sale deed of the petitioner did not mention the boundaries of the marginal land. Even the approved BDA layout plan did not mention the marginal land, but pointed to a CA site, it said.

Stating that the petitioner was not entitled for the claim of marginal land, the court observed, “There is no provision for an individual to apply for a CA site. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible to apply for a CA site under the rules.

He has no locus standi to challenge the allotment made to the respondent. He is not an aggrieved person to challenge the allotment,” the court said.

Another case

In another case, Justice Venugopala Gowda, who set aside the allotment of a site at Nagarabhavi II Stage in favour of Mitra Vrunda Youth Association (MVYA) by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) on May 8, 2009, has directed the civic agency to stick to the principles enunciated in the BDA Act, as well as the rules governing the allotment of sites.

Hearing a petition by Vokkaligara Sangha, Bangalore, (VSB), challenging the allotment, the court observed that the State or its instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to its will. Every action/decision of the State or its instrumentalities to give largesse or confer any benefit must be founded on the well-defined policy or the rules made known to the citizens. Allotment of civic amenity sites by the BDA should always be done in accordance with the provisions contained in the rules.“

“The allotment made by the BDA is contrary to the rules and has to be termed arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism, violation of the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution,” the judge observed.

Background

VSB had sought a civic amenity site, pursuant to a notification issued by the BDA on January 31, 2009, offering 100 civic amenity sites across

The petitioner association had applied for the CA site on February 28, 2009, for construction of a community hall. Interestingly, the civic amenity site allotment committee met on February 16, 2009, and resolved that the Nagarabhavi site will not be available for allotment.

In the meantime, MVYA, who were allotted a CA site at Railwaymen House Building Co-operative Society, Mallathahalli Extension, on February 2, 2008, approached the BDA for an alternate site claiming that the plot allotted to them was “unsuitable”, as no proper access roads were there to suit the “proposed maternity home”.

The BDA first allotted a portion of the Nagarabhavi site to MVYA and later allotted the entire site by way of the May 8, 2009 notification.

VSB, which grew suspicious over the activities at the Nagarabhavi site in November 2009, approached the BDA seeking allotment of the said site.

As no reply was forthcoming, it filed an application under the Right to Information Act. When it was revealed that the site had already been allotted to Mitra Vrunda by the BDA, they moved the high court.