Wind up BDA

It is corrupt, it has a poor performance record, and it is beyond repair

"A thriving place for brokers and middlemen, and a den of corruption”—this is how Deputy CM and Minister for Bengaluru Development, D K Shivakumar, described the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), urging its staff to eliminate these issues. While his diagnosis of BDA’s problems is right, his remedy, placing trust in the organisation’s staff to cure its ailments, appears misplaced. The malaise runs deeper, and transforming BDA into a healthy body is a Herculean task. Based on my experience as Chairman, BDA, and my study of urban issues, I propose some remedial measures.

Firstly, it is necessary to understand the factors contributing to the current state of affairs. Established in 1976, BDA’s mandate is to perform the dual role of planning and development authority for Bengaluru. It is also expected to check the “haphazard and irregular” growth of the city. Its functions include the preparation of Master Plan, the enforcement of land use regulations, and the preparation and implementation of development schemes. Prior to 1976, the City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) was responsible for developing residential and industrial layouts. In 1966, the Karnataka Industrial Development Board was set up to develop industrial layouts, while the BDA was tasked with developing residential layouts and city infrastructure like ring roads and flyovers. Under the BDA Act, it has also been mandated to coordinate the activities of other city agencies such as BBMP, BWSSB, and BMTC.

What is the performance record of BDA? It has prepared three master plans: Comprehensive Development (CDP, 1984), Revised CDP (1995), and Master Plan (2015). A revised Master Plan (2031) was prepared by BDA and sent for government approval about three years ago, but is gathering dust at the secretariat. As a city planning body, BDA’s record has been dismal. Except for preparing the plans, it has done little to monitor their implementation. The result has been “haphazard and irregular” growth in Bengaluru, contrary to the declared objective. In fact, the city has been witnessing more unplanned than planned development. Its enforcement of land use regulation has been characterized more by ‘turning a blind eye’ to violations, leading to the reckless commercialization of what was once called a garden city.

In terms of housing infrastructure, BDA has allotted 76,000 sites in its nearly five decades of existence, falling significantly short of the needs of the rapidly expanding city. On the positive side, BDA has served a number of economically weaker sections (EWS) and lower and middle income groups (LIG), apart from the higher income (HIG) category, thus ensuring equitable distribution. Reserved categories like SC/ST, ex-army personnel, and outstanding persons in the fields of sports, literature, and culture have also
been beneficiaries, in line with government policy.

Now, let us look at the challenges BDA faces in the execution of its plans and schemes.

Land Acquisition: Before developing layouts, land has to be acquired following the procedures prescribed under the land acquisition law, including preliminary and final notifications, the hearing of objections filed by persons whose lands are proposed to be acquired, and the payment of compensation. This process is lengthy and fraught with numerous problems. The biggest obstacle is litigation, with landowners challenging acquisitions at different stages. The entire process takes anywhere from three to ten years, although according to government policy, it must be completed in one year.

Land development and site distribution: Developing acquired agricultural lands, as is typically the case, is time-consuming. Before site formation, all necessary amenities like roads, drains, water, sewerage, and electricity connections must be in place. There have been instances where sites were allotted before without amenities for living. Kempegowda layout, where land acquisition proceedings started in 2010 and sites were allotted in 2017, but civic amenities are yet to be provided, is a classic example. I recall sometime in the late 1980s, 10,000 sites were allotted when they were not yet actually in place and came to be called ‘Paper Allotment’. The ‘social worker’ category of sites is subject to maximum misuse, as almost anyone can figure under it. There is, of course, the highly flexible ‘discretionary’ quota where friends, relatives, and bigwigs from anywhere can be beneficiaries.

Town Planning: Although the Act provides for the preparation of town planning schemes, BDA has not undertaken this task, contributing in some measure to the city’s unplanned growth. It neither has professional planners exposed to modern methods of city planning nor does it have programmes to upgrade knowledge and skills. The master planning concept mentioned above has become outdated, and no efforts are made to understand and adopt new ideas on urban planning and techniques.

Management: The internal administration or management is marred by inefficiency, delays, apathy, a lack of transparency, and accountability. BDA, the city’s biggest landlord, lacks proper records of its assets, and its financial management is weak. There have been instances where senior officers, alleged to have been involved in serious offences like misappropriation, were subject to inquiry.

The current state of affairs makes reforming the BDA nearly impossible. Attempts made in the past by well-meaning top officials have not yielded the desired results.

Divesting BDA of its multiple functions and reconstituting it as a professional city infrastructure development agency is the only viable solution. The planning function can be reassigned to the Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC), a constitutional body, and BMRDA, the planning body for the metropolitan region, can assist the MPC with technical and secretarial support.

Regarding housing, the government should give up providing sites to the public in view of the high land prices and the challenges involved in land acquisition and development.

The Deputy CM has rightly observed that the private sector is providing tough competition in the housing market. It would therefore be prudent to involve them in joint sector activity to build houses for the weaker sections, along with the Karnataka Housing Board, which is specialised in house construction and presently operates outside Bengaluru.

Wind up the BDA. What is needed is disruption, not incremental increment.

(The writer is a former chief secretary, Government of Karnataka)