The Karnataka High Court has recently nullified the allotment of a site by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to the daughter of a former Member of Parliament, ruling the allocation as illegal and an example of political favoritism. The decision came in the case of KN Prakash v. State of Karnataka, where a bench comprising Justices DK Singh and TM Nadaf determined that Pallavi Ram, the daughter of ex-Lok Sabha MP DB Chandregowda, secured the site through fraudulent means.
The court emphasized the duty of public officials to serve the public rather than their personal interests. The bench articulated that individuals in high public offices should reflect on their roles and the commitments they made upon taking office. Justice Singh and Justice Nadaf remarked, “A time has come for the people who are placed in the highest position in public life to introspect whether they are rendering the service in true senses, in serving the citizen for protecting their rights and rendering them justice rather than indulging in supporting and feeding their personal interest.”
The BDA, tasked with the planned residential development of Bengaluru, was alleged to have improperly granted the site to Pallavi Ram following a request from her father in 2009 to the then Chief Minister. The former Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly argued that his daughter was eligible for a ‘G’ category site due to her public service as a school operator. However, the allotment took place in 2010 without adhering to the appropriate legal criteria.
According to Rules 5 and 10 of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, only certain individuals in public life qualify for such allotments. The rules specifically exclude those who have previously been allotted BDA sites or who already possess residences in the Bengaluru Metropolitan area. The court found that Pallavi Ram did not meet these criteria, especially since her family already owned property in the area, including a site previously allocated to her father and a flat gifted by her mother to her brother.
The court further criticized the BDA’s decision, highlighting that the site in question was non-existent, as there were no official records of its creation. “Unnecessary favoritism or nepotism cannot be extended solely because the applicant belongs to a political family or a family of high-ranking officials,” the court asserted. It reaffirmed that allocations should adhere strictly to the regulations outlined in the Act and the Rules.
More Read
The court’s ruling also annulled the BDA’s order that encroached upon the land owned by the petitioner, who held necessary documentation and had paid property taxes to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Senior Advocate MS Bhagwat and Advocate Satish K represented the petitioner, while Additional Government Advocate GS Aruna stood for the State. Advocate Sandeep Patil appeared for Pallavi Ram, and Advocate K Krishna represented the BDA.
