Bengaluru: BDA's lapse leaves 300 families of Banashankari layout on shaky land
BENGALURU
: Hundreds of site and property owners in BDA-developed Banashankari 6th Stage Layout in south Bengaluru are looking down the barrel, a day after the Karnataka High Court quashed proceedings over acquisition of 16 acres of land.
More than 300 sites of 60ftx40ft dimension have been carved out from the land under dispute. Now, a huge question mark hangs over the future of these sites and houses built on them.
The high court quashed the acquisition proceedings as
BDA
had failed to take possession of the land it had sought to acquire 24 years ago, providing big relief to its original landowners. The proceedings concerned parcels of land in Hemmigepura and Ganakallu villages of Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru South taluk. The petition was filed by H Nagarajaiah and three others.
Caught in a legal bind, bona-fide plot owners are worried now. "I've spent my life's savings on this site. Now I'm losing it because of BDA's negligence," said V Ramdas, a distraught homeowner. Like him, over 100 residents in the area are looking at a dire situation of losing their legally purchased properties.
With nearly 300 site owners affected, the residents are demanding immediate legal intervention and accountability from BDA.
"We have filed an appeal now. We're taking it (the case) seriously. It is a matter of pride for BDA too," said BDA commissioner N Jayaram.
The HC passed the judgment in favour of original landowners, who claimed BDA failed to fully develop the land and they continued agricultural activity on it. The decision has triggered panic and disbelief among homeowners, many of whom bought plots through official BDA allotments or auctions held between 2002 and 2024.
Ramdas, who bought a 60x40 site in 2010 and built a house in 2015 with necessary BDA plan approvals, said the betrayal is hard to accept. "If BDA knew there were issues, why didn't they stop us from building a house? They sold us the land, gave approvals, and then abandoned us when it mattered the most," he told TOI.
BDA formed the layout in 2002. The layout – a soon-to-be posh locality overlooking NICE corridor – is a sought-after address for those looking for living amid quiet and green environs. Now, the layout is fully developed with tarred roads, electricity, Cauvery water supply, streetlights, garbage collection system, and a functioning residents' welfare association. Several residents, including senior citizens, have been living in the layout for over a decade.
The court accepted the argument of the original landowners. The affected areas in the layout are 2nd, 3rd and 4th blocks. Residents alleged that BDA did precious little to protect the allottees' interests in the case. "They didn't submit basic evidence like photos of the developed roads or water connections. That's where the case went against us," said CK Raviprakash, an affected landowner.
Raviprakash, now a senior citizen, hoped to spend his retirement in the home built on the land bought decades ago. "Our faith in BDA has collapsed. We trusted the govt and invested all our savings, only to be made shelterless. I will fight till my last breath. BDA has to stand with us," he added.
Prabhu R, 79, a retired BEML employee who bought his site in 2012, is upset that the agency's failure has left his family in turmoil. "I worked for nearly 40 years and coaxed my son to invest in land in BDA because I thought they are the best and legitimate. Now, my son is blaming me for asking him to invest here because of the chaos."
Residents said they repeatedly approached BDA, urging it to file an appeal against the verdict, especially since some claimed they faced threats and intimidation from "local elements" ever since the dispute erupted.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Ship mishap claim: Kerala HC directs registry to deposit money in bank
Kochi: High court on Monday directed the HC registry to deposit the amount of Rs 6 crore, covered by the demand draft provided by the owners of the cargo vessel MSC MANASA F, towards the claim raised by three cashew importing companies for losses suffered due to the capsize of MSC ELSA 3, in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank for a year. The bench of Justice M A Abdul Hakhim issued the order on petitions filed by five cashew importing companies seeking compensation for the loss of their cargo due to the sinking of the Liberian-flagged cargo vessel MSC ELSA 3 off Kerala coast on May 25. The petitioners had approached the HC with interim prayers to arrest MSC MANASA F, a sister vessel of the sunken ship, which was anchored at Vizhinjam, until the realisation of their claims. Accordingly, on June 12, the bench ordered the arrest of the vessel until the shipping company produced a demand draft for Rs 6 crore before the HC registrar general. On Monday, the owners of the vessel informed HC that the demand draft towards the petitioners' claim had been deposited with the registrar, and the high court registry confirmed the same. Additionally, the owners sought a directive to transfer the amount covered by the demand draft to an interest-bearing account. The court accepted the request and ordered accordingly, before adjourning the petitions. The petitioner companies, based in Kollam, stated in their pleas that they had purchased dried raw cashew nuts from a trading company in Dubai, which were shipped in containers bound for Tuticorin port. According to the petitioners, the consignments were expected to arrive at Tuticorin on May 24 aboard MSC ELSA 3. However, the Indian agent of the shipping company informed them via email on May 28 that the vessel had sunk on May 25 en route from Vizhinjam to Kochi, resulting in the total loss of cargo. This led the companies to file Admiralty suits seeking compensation.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Consider setting up permanent consumer courts: SC to Centre
Nagpur: The Supreme Court recently directed the central govt to create a permanent adjudicatory framework comprising full-time staff and presiding officers for consumer disputes in India. The Centre was directed to submit an affidavit in three months on the feasibility of setting up a permanent consumer tribunal or court. It emphasised that consumer forums cannot be run on temporary tenure-based appointments. "We would only implore upon it to appreciate the pressing need for a permanent structure," the bench noted. The court, invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, passed sweeping directions in a batch of appeals, while ruling on the legality and structure of consumer forums under the 2020 Rules. The SC directed that the new rules, to be notified within four months, must strictly follow earlier judgments in Rojer Mathew and Madras Bar Association cases and include a fixed five-year tenure. It also ruled that the selection committee must have a judiciary-majority composition. No written exam or viva voce will be needed for appointing or reappointing presidents and judicial members of state and district commissions, while such a process will be required only for non-judicial posts, in consultation with respective state service commissions. The SC upheld that only serving or retired district judges would be eligible for the post of district commission presidents. Once the new rules are in place, all states must complete recruitment under them within four months. Striking a Constitutional note, the bench stated, "Consumerism constitutes the very spirit of the Constitution," linking it with Articles 38, 39, and 47. It called consumer rights inalienable and remarked that consumer litigation is a form of public interest litigation, strengthening participatory democracy — a basic feature of the Constitution. The judgment also addressed three HC rulings from Bombay and Telangana concerning appointment procedures. It upheld the Bombay HC's decision to strike down parts of the 2020 Rules but modified certain aspects relating to reappointments and tenure clarifications. It also ruled that all serving appointees, whether selected before or after the Supreme Court's first ruling in the case in March 2023, may continue until the completion of fresh recruitment under the new rules. Tushar Mandlekar, assisted by Tejas Fadnavis, Astha Sharma and Anju Thomas, represented the original petitioner Mahendra Limaye, a Nagpur-based lawyer, while assistant solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the central govt. Limaye had approached Nagpur bench of Bombay HC challenging an advertisement issued in May this year for recruitment of members or president in district and state consumer commissions in Maharashtra. The HC order stated, "Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2020 is struck down on the ground that the same results in diluting the involvement of the judiciary in the process of appointment of the president and members of the state commission and the district commission. The said Rule is against the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench". The SC bench made it clear that existing appointees allowed to continue under this judgment will serve a four-year tenure, not the new five-year term. "We feel that the time has come to effect a change in mindset revamping the tenure of office in consumer fora," the judges observed.
Indian Express
9 hours ago
- Indian Express
Over 100 bike taxis seized in Bengaluru for operating despite Karnataka HC order
Officials of the road transport offices across Bengaluru seized 103 bike taxis on Monday for operating despite the Karnataka High Court's directive to suspend operations in the state. The transport department officials have also booked the riders of the 103 bike taxis across RTO divisions in the central, west, south, north, east, Electronic City, and KR Puram, among others. According to RTO officials, the riders were fined Rs 5,000 for operating bike taxis without permission and additionally for insufficient documentation. 'We have seized their vehicles and fined them for operating without permission, in line with the high court's directive. Following the payment of the fine amount, we will release the vehicle after two days,' said an RTO official. The crackdown comes after the high court on April 2 ordered all bike taxi operators, including Rapido, Uber and Ola, to suspend their operations, pending the formation of rules under section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the state government. The deadline to wind down operation is Monday (June 16), set after the aggregators sought additional four weeks, modifying a single-bench order that had granted them six weeks to suspend operations. The ban came after a division bench of the high court refused to stay the April 2 single-bench order that directed all bike taxi operators to suspend operations within six weeks. Acting Chief Justice Kameswar Rao observed that an interim relief could have been given to aggregators, provided the state government considered drafting a bike taxi policy. 'However, in this case, the state government has clearly made a policy decision (of not being interested to frame a bike taxi policy),' he noted. Transport Minister Ramalinga Reddy has emphasised that the state government is not inclined towards drafting a bike taxi policy and that white-board two wheelers cannot be used for commercial purposes. However, Rapido and Uber continued to offer courier services through bikes, which eventually also drew criticism. Bangalore Central MP P C Mohan wrote on X, 'Karnataka High Court has banned bike taxis. But aggregators continue to operate under the guise of 'Bike Parcel'. Citizens are now being reduced to mere parcels in this legal evasion. Karnataka Government has failed to implement the law. Are aggregators above the law?' He added, 'This isn't about supporting or opposing bike taxis. It's about upholding the law. No aggregator can flout Karnataka High Court orders under the guise of 'Bike Parcel' or 'Moto Courier'. This is not innovation, it is contempt of court and a challenge to judicial authority.' Meanwhile, all three major aggregator platforms–Rapido, Uber and Ola–removed the bike taxi feature from their apps on Monday, in line with the high court's order. Uber's spokesperson said in a press statement, 'Uber has taken the difficult decision to suspend bike taxi operations in Karnataka from June 16 following an order from the Hon'ble High Court. This will negatively impact the many thousands of riders who rely on bike taxis for their daily mobility needs, as well as the many thousands of drivers who rely on the service for their livelihood. We will continue engaging with the Government of Karnataka to help shape a progressive policy framework that enables safe, accessible, and affordable mobility options for everyone.' In a notification to its customers, Rapido said on the app, 'Starting June 16, 2025, our Bike Taxi services in Karnataka will be paused in compliance with recent High Court orders. While we deeply believe in the value bike taxis bring to daily commuters, we respect the law and will fully abide by the directive. We remain committed to the communities we serve and hopeful for a future where convenient, affordable mobility is accessible to all. We are navigating the way forward with the government to bring your favourite bike taxis back on the road soon.' Bike taxi associations also gave a representation to BJP MLA Ravi Subramanya seeking urgent relief from the suspension of bike taxis. The drivers demanded clear rules on licensing, insurance, and safety rather than being criminalised overnight. 'We're part of the same informal economy that Karnataka claims to support. Why are we being shut out without a conversation?' asked Mohammed Salim, president of the Namma Bike Taxi Association. Meanwhile, Shaik Salauddin, National General Secretary of the Indian Federation of App-Based Transport Workers (IFAT) and the Telangana Gig and Platform Workers' Union (TGPWU), and Inayath Ali, president of the Karnataka App-Based Workers' Union, have welcomed the high court's decision declining a stay on the single-judge order that held bike taxis cannot operate in the state unless relevant rules are framed. Shaik Salauddin said, 'We appreciate the Karnataka High Court's order. It underscores the necessity for a clear legal framework for bike taxis and highlights the ongoing violation of regulations by companies like Ola, Uber, and Rapido. These companies have been cheating workers by ignoring the rules and putting their livelihoods at risk.' Salauddin demanded strict action against the aggregator companies for non-compliance and called on the transport department to promptly issue clear guidelines and conduct special camps to convert private two-wheelers into commercial vehicles. 'This will help workers operate legally and safeguard their income and future,' he said. Inayath Ali said, 'We welcome this order as it protects the livelihoods of cab and auto drivers who lose their income due to unfair competition. If bike taxis are allowed in future, they should be permitted only with yellow number plate (commercial vehicle) registration and proper oversight by the authorities.'
