BDA leaves site owners in lurch

BDA leaves site owners in lurch

BDA leaves site owners in lurch

Kuppa Naidu’s dream of building his sweet little home turned into a nightmare, as a 600-sq ft site allotted to him by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) has been carved out at an illegal layout on a lake bed.

Naidu, an electrical contractor, had availed himself of a huge loan to buy the site. “I am not able to construct a house because I was told that the site I have bought in survey number 8 of Gubbalala village is illegal. Khatha and building plan have been denied to me.

I have taken a loan of Rs 30 lakh from a nationalised bank. Besides paying an EMI of Rs 34,000, I have to pay house rent, manage the household expenses and education of my two children. I cannot afford it,” he said. 

When he approached the BDA officials to inquire about the new layout, BDA officials said there was no problem in buying the property. They hid the fact that the BDA had formed the layout by levelling Venkatarayana Kere (lake) and included it as a part of BSK 6th Stage Extension. Convinced by the officials’ words, he had bought the 20X30 ft site worth Rs 22 lakh at Banashankari 6th Stage on June 28.

But, things changed when he went to get the Khatha a month later. He was told that there was 'some glitch'. When Naidu insisted, he was told that the layout where his site is located has not been approved yet. Fed up with Naidu's persistent questions on the status of his site, Rangaswamy, a BDA engineer, told him not to contact him anymore and told him to meet the Town Planning (TP) officers in the BDA. The TP officials too were clueless. Just to get rid of Naidu, they told him to come on September 2 when the BDA Board would approve the layout plan, which, however, didn’t happen.

Like Naidu, there are many other site owners who have fell victims to the BDA’s alleged illegalities. When contacted, the BDA commissioner T Sham Bhatt said: “I don't know. The lake bed layout was not formed during my time. When it was formed, the land acquisition officers showed it in their records as a kharaab land (waste land).”

However, Bhatt said: “The High Court is also asking us the same question.”