Allotting one site to many: HC asks BDA to pay Rs 1L

Jayadevappa said that Rawat was illegally claiming ownership of the site which was allotted to him as an ex-MP.

Published: 22nd February 2020 06:41 AM  |   Last Updated: 22nd February 2020 06:41 AM   |  A+A-

Express News Service

BENGALURU: Noting that the Bangalore Development Authority’s (BDA) tendency to allot a site to more than one person is well-known, the Karnataka High Court has imposed cost of Rs 1 lakh on the civic body for allotting a ‘denotified’ site to a former Rajya Sabha member under ‘G’ category in RT Nagar.
Quashing the allotment, the division bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Jyoti Mulimani said the BDA was aware that it had allotted the site to former Congress MP KR Jayadevappa although it had earlier been denotified.

“It is seen that the BDA committed two illegalities: First, a site which had been excluded from the acquisition process was allotted to a third party by ignoring the notification. Second, the site was allotted under ‘G’ category to a former MP,” the bench said, allowing the writ appeal filed by one Shubhashekar and others. The bench said that the site allotted by the BDA was null and void.  

According to the appellants, that site measured 60’X40’ on survey No 5/1 of Gangenahalli village, RT Nagar. The BDA had issued a notification to acquire the site. When it was challenged by the original owner Arun R Rawat the high court quashed the notification in October 1990.

However, on November 7, 1997, the BDA allotted the same site to the ex-MP and executed a sale deed in August 2002. Jayadevappa sold the site to SN Prasad in 2005. Then, Rawat, sent legal notices to the BDA and ex-MP.

Jayadevappa said that Rawat was illegally claiming ownership of the site which was allotted to him as an ex-MP. The matter went to the high court and a single judge bench dismissed the petition, asking the parties to approach the civil court.

“It appears that there is a tendency on the part of the BDA to somehow wriggle about the illegalities by suppressing the record and taking up contentions which would ultimately lead this court to pass orders which are contrary to the BDA records and the case facts. By suppressing the true facts, BDA tried to cover up its illegalities,” the bench observed.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp