Allotment of Public Property to Ineligible Persons Based on Political Influence Is Arbitrary and Void ab initio

The petitioner purchased a site in 1989 carved out of Sy. No. 1/1 of Geddalahalli Village

This land was part of a larger acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for the RMV 2nd Stage Layout, though the petitioner contended the acquisition notifications were quashed in previous litigations

In 2009, Respondent No. 3 (daughter of a sitting Member of Parliament) requested a "stray site" under 'G' Category

The State Government directed the BDA to allot a site to Respondent No. 3 as a "special case"

Consequently, the BDA allotted Site No. 253A on June 7, 2010—a site that the petitioner alleged was "illusory" and overlapping his property, as it was only officially created via a modified plan on October 12, 2010

An Inquiry Committee, constituted per High Court directions in a separate PIL, confirmed the allotment based on an affidavit by Respondent No. 3

leading to a Sale Deed in 2022

1. Whether the allotment of the ‘G’ Category site in favor of Respondent No. 3 is sustainable under the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984

2. Whether the State Government has the authority to direct the allotment of sites to specific individuals as a "special case" dehors the statutory rules

The court applied Rule 5 and 10 of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, which govern the allotment of "stray sites" under Category 'G' for "persons in public life"—defined as those serving the community or elected representatives

It also applied Section 13 of the BDA Act, 1976, regarding the Commissioner's duty to refer resolutions that contravene the law back to the Government

The court relied on the precedent set in K. Raju v. BDA, which held that the Government cannot exercise powers under Section 65 of the BDA Act to allot sites to persons of its choice

and Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy, establishing that fraud and misrepresentation avoid all judicial and administrative acts

The court found the allotment fundamentally flawed because the State Government bypassed statutory procedures by directing the BDA to treat Respondent No. 3 as a "special case," a term not recognized under Rule 5

Respondent No. 3 did not meet the eligibility criteria for "persons in public life"; simply being the daughter of a politician or running a private school did not qualify her under the statutory definition

Furthermore, the court observed that Respondent No. 3 practiced fraud by filing a false affidavit before the Committee, suppressing the fact that her father had already been allotted a BDA site in 1982

Procedural irregularities were highlighted by the fact that the allotment letter was issued on June 7, 2010, for a site (No. 253A) that did not exist on the layout plan until October 12, 2010, rendering it an "illusory site" created solely to favor a politically connected individual

It held that the allotment was a "colourable exercise of power" rooted in favouritism and nepotism rather than objective merit

The court clarified that while the BDA site allotment is quashed, the underlying title dispute between the petitioner and the BDA regarding the original land acquisition remains subject to the pending civil suit in O.S. No. 3813/2022