No favouritism for political families: Karnataka HC quashes BDA site allotment to ex-MP's daughter

The Karnataka High Court recently held the allotment of a Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) site to a former Member of Parliament's daughter to be illegal, arbitrary and a case of political favouritism [KN Prakash v. State of Karnataka].

A Bench of Justices DK Singh and TM Nadaf said that Pallavi Ram, daughter of former Lok Sabha MP DB Chandregowda, obtained a recommendation order by means of fraud.

The Court observed that persons in high public offices are required to work for the good of the people and not for their personal interest.

"A time has come for the people who are placed in 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 indulge in supporting and feeding their personal interest. The letter by the father of the third respondent is an example of feeding the personal interest which is against the oath taken by the said person. The persons in highest pedestal placed in highest public office as elected representatives or in highest public offices by means of their Government service are expected to work according to their oath and should stand high against the private interest."

The BDA is a government body responsible for planned residential development of Bengaluru.

The petitioner held a katha certificate and a no objection certificate for his property. He paid property tax to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. He filed a writ petition when a part of his property was allotted to Ram by the BDA.

In 2009, Chandregowda, former Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, requested the then Chief Minister to allot a 'G' category site to his daughter, stating that she was a person in public life who ran a school. The site was allotted to Pallavi Ram in 2010.

As per Rule 5 of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, stray sites and 'G' category sites can be allotted to persons in public life. Rule 10 provides for the criterion of persons eligible to be be allotted sites by the BDA. It excludes persons who have been previously allotted BDA sites and who do own residences or sites in the Bengaluru Metropolitan area.

The BDA Committee relied on Pallavi Ram's relationship with her father to grant her the site.

The Court held that as per the Rules 5 and 10, being the daughter of politician and running a school for earning a livelihood did not make her eligible to be allotted a site.

Further, the Court also noted that a BDA site had been allotted to Pallavi Ram's father. Additionally, her mother had gifted a flat to her son in the vicinity of Bangalore metropolitan, making her ineligible to be allotted a BDA site.

The Court held the site allotted to Pallavi Ram was illusory as no records of its creation was available.

"An unnecessary favouritism or nepotism cannot be extended only because the person has applied for allotment belongs to a political family or to a family of the officials placed in highest pedestal. The criteria should be in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and Rules there under and not on the authority which their family members held in the public life."

Holding the recommendation for allotment and the allotment process to be unsustainable, the Court set aside the BDA allotment order that included a part of the petitioner's land.

Senior Advocate MS Bhagwat and Advocate Satish K represented the petitioner.

Additional Government Advocate GS Aruna represented the State.

Advocate Sandeep Patil represented Pallavi Ram.

BDA was represented by Advocate K Krishna.

[Read Judgment]