State mandate is no shield from scrutiny

The Bangalore Development Authority’s (BDA) plea to exempt itself from the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) is both untenable and dangerous. The Authority argues that, as a statutory planning body, it is not a ‘promoter’ and therefore should not be equated with private builders. It further claims that its projects cater to the poor and the middle class, unlike private developers who function for profit. Ironically, this is the very reason why the BDA must remain under the RERA ambit: those who place their trust and life savings in a government agency deserve stronger, not weaker, protection.

Consider the plight of allottees of the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout. Announced in 2010 with site allotments beginning six years later, the layout was supposed to have basic infrastructure by 2018. Instead, thousands of allottees are left with barren plots without roads, drainage, water, or power. Many who have availed of loans to purchase the sites have been forced to pay both EMIs and house rent while waiting endlessly to build their homes. Their dream sites have turned into dumping grounds for garbage. The BDA’s repeated assurances and shifting deadlines have only deepened their misery. If not for RERA, where could these citizens seek timely redress? This is not an isolated case. The BDA’s history is marred by scams, ranging from double allotment of sites to the illegal conversion of land reserved for parks and playgrounds into commercial plots. Officials have often colluded with land sharks, depriving the city of vital green spaces and bleeding the exchequer of hundreds of crores of rupees. While occasional investigations expose wrongdoing, systemic corruption remains endemic. If anything, the BDA has been more notorious than many private builders it seeks to distinguish itself from.

Granting such an agency exemption from RERA would be to grant it a free pass for continued mismanagement and malpractice. Accountability cannot be selective. RERA was created precisely to curb delay, ensure transparency, and protect homebuyers, whether the promoter is a private developer or a statutory agency. If a government institution entrusted with public land fails to deliver, the law must bind it as firmly as it holds private players. The BDA’s argument is therefore not just flawed but cynical. It cannot invoke its welfare mandate while continuing to betray the very citizens it claims to serve. Exempting the BDA from RERA would be an abdication of responsibility. Far from being shielded, the Authority must be held to an even higher standard.