<p>Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar’s statement in the Assembly that the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) will appeal against the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority’s (RERA) order directing it to register its housing projects under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act is deeply troubling. </p><p>At a time when public confidence in the authority is already low, the government has chosen to defend bureaucratic privilege rather than uphold the rights of thousands of long-suffering homebuyers. </p><p>The dispute arose from complaints over the much-delayed Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout (NPKL). Before K-RERA, the BDA argued that it should be exempt from the Act as it is a statutory body constituted under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, and not a commercial ‘promoter’. It contended that RERA’s requirements – particularly rigid timelines, financial disclosures, and compensation for delays – would cripple its functioning, given the complexities of land acquisition and prolonged litigation.</p>.BDA grant for chairman's area amid neglected layouts .<p>These arguments were rightly rejected. In its order, K-RERA held that under Section 2 (zk) of the RERA Act, any body that develops land or buildings for sale to the public qualifies as a promoter, irrespective of whether its stated objective is profit or public welfare. Crucially, the authority invoked Section 89 of the Act, which gives RERA an overriding effect over inconsistent state laws, including the BDA Act. The BDA was, therefore, directed to register the NPKL and disclose details of progress and finances. </p><p>BDA’s concern that RERA compliance would impose an unsustainable financial burden on it is fundamentally flawed. If the authority cannot compensate allottees for delays stretching close to a decade, it points to chronic mismanagement. RERA’s requirement that 70 per cent of buyer funds be kept in an escrow account exists precisely to prevent the diversion of allottee money to unrelated works, an accusation that has dogged the BDA for years. </p><p>There is no rational basis for excluding the BDA from RERA’s ambit. In substance, it operates no differently from a private developer: it advertises layouts, collects large sums from citizens, and promises basic infrastructure such as roads, water, and electricity.</p>.<p>While recent administrative changes under the current BDA commissioner, P Manivannan, have shown some promise, backing the appeal against RERA signals a move to preserve bureaucratic immunity and shield entrenched corruption. </p><p>Bengaluru’s urban governance will improve only when its principal development authority is subjected to the same standards of transparency, discipline, and legal consequence as any other promoter. Compliance with RERA is not optional; it is non-negotiable.</p>
<p>Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar’s statement in the Assembly that the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) will appeal against the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority’s (RERA) order directing it to register its housing projects under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act is deeply troubling. </p><p>At a time when public confidence in the authority is already low, the government has chosen to defend bureaucratic privilege rather than uphold the rights of thousands of long-suffering homebuyers. </p><p>The dispute arose from complaints over the much-delayed Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout (NPKL). Before K-RERA, the BDA argued that it should be exempt from the Act as it is a statutory body constituted under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, and not a commercial ‘promoter’. It contended that RERA’s requirements – particularly rigid timelines, financial disclosures, and compensation for delays – would cripple its functioning, given the complexities of land acquisition and prolonged litigation.</p>.BDA grant for chairman's area amid neglected layouts .<p>These arguments were rightly rejected. In its order, K-RERA held that under Section 2 (zk) of the RERA Act, any body that develops land or buildings for sale to the public qualifies as a promoter, irrespective of whether its stated objective is profit or public welfare. Crucially, the authority invoked Section 89 of the Act, which gives RERA an overriding effect over inconsistent state laws, including the BDA Act. The BDA was, therefore, directed to register the NPKL and disclose details of progress and finances. </p><p>BDA’s concern that RERA compliance would impose an unsustainable financial burden on it is fundamentally flawed. If the authority cannot compensate allottees for delays stretching close to a decade, it points to chronic mismanagement. RERA’s requirement that 70 per cent of buyer funds be kept in an escrow account exists precisely to prevent the diversion of allottee money to unrelated works, an accusation that has dogged the BDA for years. </p><p>There is no rational basis for excluding the BDA from RERA’s ambit. In substance, it operates no differently from a private developer: it advertises layouts, collects large sums from citizens, and promises basic infrastructure such as roads, water, and electricity.</p>.<p>While recent administrative changes under the current BDA commissioner, P Manivannan, have shown some promise, backing the appeal against RERA signals a move to preserve bureaucratic immunity and shield entrenched corruption. </p><p>Bengaluru’s urban governance will improve only when its principal development authority is subjected to the same standards of transparency, discipline, and legal consequence as any other promoter. Compliance with RERA is not optional; it is non-negotiable.</p>
