SRINATH HEGDE Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BANGALORE Development Authority [BDA] and the manner of its functioning is rather difficult to fathom. BDA is a development authority within the meaning of the provisions of the BANGALORE Development Authority Act, 1976 [for short, the Act] in respect of metropolitan area of BANGALORE city and also planning authority within the meaning of this phrase as it occurs in the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, has been on the other hand an authority functioning in a most erratic, whimsical, arbitrary manner over a period of time.

(2.) THE city of Bangalore, which could have been transformed into a beautiful developed garden city, has only turned out to be a concrete jungle, a messed up concrete jungle and the annihilation of green cover which was available earlier in the city has made this possible!

(3.) BEING a Development Authority under the BDA Act, when a scheme is prepared as in the instant case, the scheme for Rajamahal Vilas Extension development, it is the primary duty of the BDA to ensure that the scheme is only in conformity with the plan which it has already prepared and published under the Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961. It is also necessary while acting as a planning authority to ensure that the development in the entire metropolitan area, not merely the scheme which BDA has prepared, but developments otherwise also are all fully in conformity with the plan. When such is the twin, onerous responsibility and is a statutory duty imposed on the BDA under these two enactments, the conduct and attitude of the BDA in not placing either the overall plan for the metropolitan area as was prevailing at the time of preparation of the scheme for RMV II Stage Extension or the non placing of the original scheme with reference to which alone, one can understand and appreciate the extent up to which the BDA has implemented the scheme in conformity with the scheme as had been originally propounded and also as to whether such extent of implementation can in any way amounts to a substantial implementation of the scheme, could have been answered. The BDA in spite of specific directions to place such record before the court, not having done so, in a proper manner, but producing maps prepared as of now with the help of some current facilities, definitely leads to doubting the bona fides of the BDA in the exercise of its statutory powers and also belies its claim that the BDA had implemented the scheme in a substantial manner to avoid the operation of Section 27 of the BDA Act.