Bengaluru: In a relief for Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), the high court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of Section 38-D of BDA Act.This provision, which came into effect from July 10, 2020, pertains to allotment of BDA land in favour of the original owner or purchaser or unauthorised occupant, etc. Vijayan Menon and others from Bengaluru challenged this along with amendments made to the corresponding Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act and Rules.The petitioners argued that Section 38-D of BDA Act enabling transfer of public lands to illegal occupants without any basis is arbitrary. They contended that this places illegal occupants in an advantageous position compared with law-abiding citizens. They argued that in the absence of guidelines governing the exercise of statutory power, such power would be subject to arbitrariness.BDA told the court that its predecessor, City Improvement Trust Board (CITB), and the authority itself had acquired large areas of land between 1945 and 2010. Around 75,000 sites in various CITB layouts were under unauthorised occupation, and many original landowners whose land had been acquired already built houses on these sites. Many of these properties had also been bought and sold over the years.BDA said it was difficult to evict all the unauthorised occupants or demolish structures where people had been living for more than 12 years. In some cases, these occupants were also eligible to be allotted BDA sites because their land had been acquired. Therefore, it would make little sense to remove them from the sites only to allot them new ones later, BDA stated.Petitioners’ claim lacks merit: BenchA division bench, comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha, noted that the arguments of the petitioners lacked merit. It noted the claim that Section 38-D of BDA Act lacks guiding principles for exercising statutory powers is not correct. The section allows BDA to allot land in certain situations where acquired or vested land cannot be used because a building already exists on it and it is not practical to include the land in a development scheme or site formation plan. In such cases, the land may be allotted or sold to the original owner, a person who purchased it from the original owner or an unauthorised occupant who is in settled possession of the land. However, the provision does not apply to tenants, licensees or land losers, the bench added.What does amendment say?The amendment states that for land with a building (excluding corner sites), owners of sites up to 20ft x 30ft must pay a levy of 10% of the guidance value. For sites larger than 20ft x 30ft and up to 30ft x 40ft, the levy is 25% of guidance value. For sites larger than 30ft x 40ft and up to 40ft x 60ft, levy is 40%. For sites larger than 40ft x 60ft and up to 50ft x 80ft, the levy is 50% of guidance value, along with a penalty.
