No family can survive on Rs 11,000 a year: HC -P Vasanth Kumar

-The Times of India


BANGALORE: The Karnataka high court has wondered whether any family can survive on an annual income of less than Rs 11,800, the ceiling to apply for BDA sites under economically weaker sections (EWS) category.

Observing that the government must revise the ceiling for all categories every year, the high court has said a beneficiary must not pay for government’s failure.

"The Rs 11,800 ceiling was fixed long ago. The same is required to be enhanced from time to time. There is a failure on the part of the government in not enhancing the income to determine (if) a person is eligible for EWS (sites) or not," a division bench headed by Justice K L Manjunath has observed, dismissing a writ appeal filed by the Bangalore Development Authority.

"On account of the lapse committed by the government, a person cannot be penalized. Every year, the government is bound to fix the ceiling for all the categories. When there is a failure on the part of the government to do so, the authorities cannot set aside the order of allotment three years after the same was made," the bench has observed, upholding the December 9, 2009 order of the single-judge bench.

Shakeerabi, from Ilyasnagar, had applied for an EWS site with a claim that her annual income is Rs 10,000. She was allotted a 20x30ft site, bearing No 464 at Sir M Visvesvaraya Layout on February 6, 2004. She paid Rs 56,000 for the site. Three years later, the BDA issued a show-cause notice to Shakeerabi, saying she had concealed the entire family’s income and asked her why her site allotment should not be cancelled. Her family’s annual earnings stood at Rs 21,000, factoring her husband’s income, it said. On June 8, 2007, the BDA revoked the site allotment on the ground that she didn’t reply to the notice within the stipulated time.

A single-judge bench had quashed the cancellation of the site. Quoting Rule 2(d) of the BDA Rules, the judge had said what is required to be considered is the income of the applicant and not that of her husband. The BDA filed the writ appeal against the order.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *