Greater Bengaluru Authority replaces BBMP as city's main civic agency: Here's what it means
On May 15, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah announced the implementation of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, replacing the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) with the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA). The change took effect after the Governor granted assent to the new governance act.
"From today, the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) is coming into effect. The BBMP will no longer exist. The bill was passed in both houses and signed by the Governor. Henceforth, it will be known as Greater Bengaluru. I will be the Chairman of it," the CM had said.
Also Read: How will Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill impact the real estate sector in the IT capital?
The Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, allows the creation of at least three municipal corporations to govern the city instead of a single municipal body like the BBMP, according to a statement released by the state government.
All municipal corporations will be led by an elected mayor responsible for specific zones. These corporations will function under a central authority, the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA), to ensure cohesive urban planning and infrastructure coordination across the IT capital.
The Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) Act, passed by the Karnataka Legislature in February 2024, was introduced in response to long-standing demands for governance reform in Bengaluru, a city struggling with rapid population growth, infrastructure challenges, and environmental issues.
Unlike the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), which manages a 709-square-kilometre area, the GBA was initially proposed to expand the city's boundaries to over 1,000 square kilometres, incorporating peripheral villages. However, according to a report by the Indian Express, the government has temporarily put these expansion plans on hold, opting to retain the existing BBMP limits for now.
Villages outside the current city boundaries will continue to be governed by gram panchayats, preserving the existing rural administrative structure. Officials indicated that any future expansion would be undertaken systematically, following the formalisation of the GBA's regulations.
The Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) incorporates several provisions from the Bengaluru Metropolitan Land Transport Authority to enhance transport planning and coordination within the Bengaluru Metropolitan Area. It also brings together key agencies, including the Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited, and the Bangalore Development Authority, issuing binding directives to streamline municipal and transport functions.
Also Read: Greater Bengaluru Authority replaces BBMP as city's governing body
The exact boundaries of the Greater Bengaluru Authority are yet to be defined, but it is expected to cover around 1,000 sq km, compared to BBMP's current over 700 sq km. Experts said this expansion will likely include the merging of adjacent areas and villages into the Bengaluru metropolitan area.
For the first time, multiple key agencies responsible for Bengaluru's infrastructure and services—including the Bengaluru Development Authority, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation, among others, are expected to be brought under one umbrella with the formation of the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA).
Urban experts said this integrated structure aims to enable more cohesive urban planning and smoother coordination across departments, addressing the long-standing issue of fragmented governance in the city.
For the real estate sector, expanding Bengaluru's limits is likely to boost property prices, especially in the outskirts, experts said.
"Such a redefinition will naturally impact real estate. Areas surrounding Bengaluru will likely see a rise in land prices as they begin to be officially identified as part of the city. This will create a ripple effect, especially in peri-urban areas, where land values are already high in anticipation," Srinivas Alavilli, fellow, Integrated Transport and Road Safety, WRI India, said.
Experts warn that although the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) aims to expand the city's administrative scope, it could risk undermining crucial urban planning functions, particularly the integration of land use and transportation systems.
'Take Whitefield, for instance. Development happened without coordinated transport planning, and now the area faces major traffic and connectivity issues,' said Satya Arikutharam, former chief technical advisor to the state government and now an independent consultant.
'Although the Bengaluru Metropolitan Land Transport Authority (BMLTA) was established to bridge such planning gaps, the GBA could potentially sideline its role. Integrating transport and land use is key to sustainable growth, but that priority seems to be missing from the current proposal,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
No category called 'suspicious voters' in RP Act, can't manipulate EVMs: Law minister
. NEW DELHI: There is no category of voters called "suspicious voters" under the Representation of the People (RP) Act, law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said on Thursday in response to a question in Rajya Sabha. Samajwadi Party MP Ramji Lal Suman raised the question whether in the last Lok Sabha elections suspicious voters had also cast their votes. He said there is a lot of speculation about suspicious voters, and alleged that the results can be manipulated on electronic voting machines (EVMs). He asked the minister if the votes were being cast correctly. " Election Commission has informed that there is no category of suspicious voters as per the RP Act," the minister said, and added that EC further informed that "the election results cannot be manipulated on EVMs". Meghwal said there is no doubt in the fairness and integrity of EVMs which, he said, have stood the test of several elections, public and legal scrutiny over the years. "EC has further informed that in at least 42 petitions against use of EVMs which have been filed before various high courts and Supreme Court, and after going through various aspects of the technological soundness and the administrative safeguards involved in the use of EVMs, the courts have repeatedly held that EVMs are tamper proof, credible and reliable," the minister added. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Most Beautiful Women In The World Undo He said EC has mentioned that to dispel any apprehension of any kind, EVM-related documents, such as manual on EVM and VVPAT, presentation on EVM, status paper on EVM, legal history of EVMs and VVPATs and FAQs are available in public domain on EC website that anyone can check.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Judicial panel clears Siddaramaiah and wife in Muda case
. BENGALURU: A government-appointed judicial committee has exonerated Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah and his wife BM Parvathi in the alleged Mysuru Urban Development Authority (Muda) scam, after opposition BJP claimed irregularities and a loss of around Rs 4,000 crore to the exchequer through fraudulent land allotments. The one-member panel headed by retired high court judge Justice PN Desai submitted its six-volume report to chief secretary Shalini Rajneesh, nearly a year after it was formed. A senior MLA familiar with the report's contents said Thursday the panel found no illegality in the allotment of 14 alternative sites to Siddaramaiah's wife in exchange for 3 acres acquired by Muda in Kesare village of Mysuru. The panel rejected allegations of misuse of office and ruled out any involvement of the CM in wider allotment irregularities. The findings mark a relief for Siddaramaiah, who already secured legal reprieve in July when Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by ED. The agency had challenged a Karnataka HC order quashing its notice to Parvathi and cabinet minister Byrathi Suresh. Earlier this year, Karnataka Lokayukta had cleared Siddaramaiah of wrongdoing. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Malegaon blast case: UAPA sanctions invalid, terror charge can't stick, rules court
MUMBAI: Special trial judge A K Lahoti, in a key finding that led to the collapse of the Malegaon blast case , held that the prior sanction under the anti-terror law UAPA against the accused was "invalid." It was issued without judicious application of mind, and the mandatory twin test safeguard required by law was not scrupulously followed, the court said. The judge analysed Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which outlines procedural safeguards. Section 45(1) requires valid sanction from the Centre or state govt to prosecute any terror offence under the Act. Section 45(2) mandates an independent review of the evidence by an authority appointed by the govt. Lt Col Prasad Purohit, through his counsel Shrikant Shivade (who passed away in 2022) and later advocate Viral Babar, had consistently argued that the UAPA sanction was flawed. Other accused also challenged the validity of the Jan 2009 sanction and another issued in 2011 by the additional chief secretary (home). The trial court held both sanctions to be "defective." While the prosecution claimed it had followed the twin test, the court said there was no evidence it was done as mandated under Section 45(2). by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Stylish New Mobility Scooters Available for Seniors (Prices May Surprise You) Mobility Scooter | Search Ads Search Now Undo "The sanction is not a curable defect. So, all the provisions of UAPA will not be invoked," the judge ruled. Advocates Ranjeet Sangle (for Sudhakar Dwivedi) and J P Mishra (for Sadhvi Pragya Singh) also argued that the first sanction bypassed the statutory safeguard under Section 45(2), and that the absence of such review invalidated the trial court's cognisance of UAPA charges. Special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal had contended that the sanction's validity could only be decided during the trial, a view echoed by the Supreme Court in 2018. However, the special judge reviewed the sanctioning procedure and found that UAPA charges could not be sustained due to the faulty sanction. Shivade had also pointed out that the authority did not comply with the mandatory safeguard of an additional review committee required under law since Dec 31, 2008. The prosecution argued that since the crime occurred in Sept 2008, the earlier 2004 provision-without the second review-was applicable. But the Supreme Court clarified in 2023 that the UAPA's procedural safeguards during sanction are mandatory.
