BDA gave majority of 'G' sites to 'non-entities': CAG

Consider this: Of the 438 sites allotted by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) under ‘G’ category, a majority of them were allotted to people who did not figure in public life, in violation of rules.

‘G’ category sites as per the BDA (Allotments of sites) Rules, 1984, are meant for persons in public life - that the allottees should have a proven record in public life. In its report tabled in the Assembly on Wednesday, the CAG noted that 40 per cent of the 438 sites were allotted to MLAs/MLCs/MPs (167 sites), artistes (seven sites) or sportspersons (one site). Sixty per cent of the sites were allotted to ‘others’.

The report was released to the media at a press briefing by Principal Accountant General (Economic and Revenue Sector Audit) Anita Pattanayak and Principal Accountant General (General and Social Sector Audit) D J Bhadra in Bangalore.

According to the CAG, the BDA did not have any background information record for 235 of the 263 allottees under the ‘others’ category.

It did have background information on 28 allottees who turned out to be 12 government officials, two housewives, four agriculturists, three businessmen, two private employees, a seer, a social worker, a doctor, a professor and a waiter.  Further, BDA allotted sites on the directions of the government and did not have any role to determine the merits of allotment.

The CAG has noted allotments (22 sites) continued even after the High Court ruled that the State government had no power or authority to direct the BDA to allot sites to any person under the ‘G’ category.

The CAG has noted a loss of Rs 9.84 crore due to the callous nature of the BDA in verifying the applications of people whose names had been processed under the ‘G’ category. The CAG has noted that in the case of 10 applicants, the candidates had declared in their affidavits that they owned sites in Bangalore.

This held them ineligible under the BDA rules. Yet, they got sites. The CAG has also flayed the BDA for having no transparency in the allotment of civic amenity sites.

Comments (+)