<p>The high court has upheld the allotment of civic amenity sites to GAIL (India) Ltd, Syndicate Bank and Bennett and Coleman Company Limited at Manyata Nagar in Rachenahalli. </p>.<p>Hearing an appeal filed by the three entities, a division bench headed by Justice B V Nagarathna held that even if the petitions were filed in public interest, there was no illegality in the allotment of the CA sites. </p>.<p>In 2013, a single-judge bench had quashed the Bangalore Development Authority's (BDA) order on the site allotment in 2010 following a petition by the Manyata Residents' Association. The petitioner contended that the allotment of sites was in violation of the BDA Act and rules. The single judge had held that corporate offices of the bank and the business house would not characterise as an amenity or a civic amenity. </p>.<p>The division bench, however, took a different view. Observing that there was no illegality in the site allotment, it held that the petitioner was not the aggrieved party. </p>.<p>"Learned single judge has misdirected himself in considering the eligibility of the allottees to be allotted the civic amenity sites and the purpose of allotment in terms of the 1989 rules, which we have held, do not apply to these allotments in the present cases. Consequently, the learned single judge was also not right in holding that the petitioners had the locus standi to challenge the allotments," the order said. </p>.<p>The bench also directed the Manyata Residents’ Association to pay Rs 1 lakh to each allottee. </p>
<p>The high court has upheld the allotment of civic amenity sites to GAIL (India) Ltd, Syndicate Bank and Bennett and Coleman Company Limited at Manyata Nagar in Rachenahalli. </p>.<p>Hearing an appeal filed by the three entities, a division bench headed by Justice B V Nagarathna held that even if the petitions were filed in public interest, there was no illegality in the allotment of the CA sites. </p>.<p>In 2013, a single-judge bench had quashed the Bangalore Development Authority's (BDA) order on the site allotment in 2010 following a petition by the Manyata Residents' Association. The petitioner contended that the allotment of sites was in violation of the BDA Act and rules. The single judge had held that corporate offices of the bank and the business house would not characterise as an amenity or a civic amenity. </p>.<p>The division bench, however, took a different view. Observing that there was no illegality in the site allotment, it held that the petitioner was not the aggrieved party. </p>.<p>"Learned single judge has misdirected himself in considering the eligibility of the allottees to be allotted the civic amenity sites and the purpose of allotment in terms of the 1989 rules, which we have held, do not apply to these allotments in the present cases. Consequently, the learned single judge was also not right in holding that the petitioners had the locus standi to challenge the allotments," the order said. </p>.<p>The bench also directed the Manyata Residents’ Association to pay Rs 1 lakh to each allottee. </p>