<p>The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the country’s supreme audit institution, wrote to the BDA five times, seeking details of land acquisition and denotification cases. <br />The Urban Development Department directed the BDA thrice, to comply. However, the BDA continues to defy the directions. Deccan Herald has accessed the correspondence between the agencies through an RTI application.<br /><br />The trail<br /><br />The first communication to the BDA was from D J Bhadra, Principal Accountant General of Karnataka on October 5, 2010. He sought details of land acquisition and denotification over the past 10 years. <br /><br />The query came at a time when Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa was accused of nepotism in denotifying the land acquired by the BDA. The letter sought dates of acquisition notification, the survey numbers, the purpose of acquisition, the burden on the exchequer as a consequence of acquisition, the date of denotification and the reason, and the alternative arrangement made. <br /><br />A model format was sent to the BDA to furnish the information. The agency ignored two reminders by Bhadra - on November 18, 2010 and January 11, 2011 to BDA Commissioner Bharat Lal Meena.<br /><br />The principal AG brought the matter to the notice of Subir Hari Singh, Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, on January 25, 2011. Hari Singh, in his letter dated February 15, 2011 asked BDA commissioner to provide the information sought by the CAG. A reminder followed on March 5.<br /><br />On March 7, the principal AG again wrote to Hari Singh and the BDA commissioner demanding the information. The Urban Development Department again shot off a reminder to the BDA on March 23. The ‘deafening silence,’ continued.<br /><br />BDA Commissioner Bharat Lal Meena told Deccan Herald that the Authority was required by law to furnish the information sought by CAG. <br /><br />While refusing to answer a query on whether political pressure had led to delay in providing information to the AG, Meena said he had not come across any exact reason for the delay. He said he would soon instruct the officer concerned to furnish the required information.</p>
<p>The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the country’s supreme audit institution, wrote to the BDA five times, seeking details of land acquisition and denotification cases. <br />The Urban Development Department directed the BDA thrice, to comply. However, the BDA continues to defy the directions. Deccan Herald has accessed the correspondence between the agencies through an RTI application.<br /><br />The trail<br /><br />The first communication to the BDA was from D J Bhadra, Principal Accountant General of Karnataka on October 5, 2010. He sought details of land acquisition and denotification over the past 10 years. <br /><br />The query came at a time when Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa was accused of nepotism in denotifying the land acquired by the BDA. The letter sought dates of acquisition notification, the survey numbers, the purpose of acquisition, the burden on the exchequer as a consequence of acquisition, the date of denotification and the reason, and the alternative arrangement made. <br /><br />A model format was sent to the BDA to furnish the information. The agency ignored two reminders by Bhadra - on November 18, 2010 and January 11, 2011 to BDA Commissioner Bharat Lal Meena.<br /><br />The principal AG brought the matter to the notice of Subir Hari Singh, Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, on January 25, 2011. Hari Singh, in his letter dated February 15, 2011 asked BDA commissioner to provide the information sought by the CAG. A reminder followed on March 5.<br /><br />On March 7, the principal AG again wrote to Hari Singh and the BDA commissioner demanding the information. The Urban Development Department again shot off a reminder to the BDA on March 23. The ‘deafening silence,’ continued.<br /><br />BDA Commissioner Bharat Lal Meena told Deccan Herald that the Authority was required by law to furnish the information sought by CAG. <br /><br />While refusing to answer a query on whether political pressure had led to delay in providing information to the AG, Meena said he had not come across any exact reason for the delay. He said he would soon instruct the officer concerned to furnish the required information.</p>