@DKShivakumar @mlanaharis @ShobhaBJP @nimmasuresh @STSomashekarMLA Dear @BDAOfficialGok, 1) In social media interactions and previous NPKL review meetings, BDA acknowledged the need for footpath formation across 30 ft to 100 ft roads. Commissioner @Captain_Mani72 sir had directed the Engineering Team to prepare the necessary plans and cost estimates and place the proposal before the BDA Board. A recent BDA Board meeting has been held. Could @BDAOfficialGok clarify the decision taken regarding footpath development in #NadaprabhuKempegowdaLayout ? Has the Board approved the proposal? Have the design, estimates, implementation plan, and funding mechanism been finalized? Site owners would appreciate a clear update, as safe and accessible footpaths are an essential component of a well-planned layout. 2) In addition, covering open culverts and providing safe pedestrian crossings is equally important for resident safety and walkability across the layout. #NPKL #NadaprabhuKempegowdaLayout #BDA #Footpath #SafePedestrian #BangaloreDevelopmentAuthority #Bangalore

BDA and BMRDA aren't institutions that can do much in the short term (22 months to the next election). Instead, it is better to carve out BMTC from the Transport department and bring it under the Bangalore Minister @krishnabgowda

Pls Add 3️⃣ In NPKL 4100 acres × 24 Sites = 94,100 Assume 50K Sites formed Around MAJOR ARTERIAL🫀ROAD (MAR) & This ARTERY IS CLOGGED. 12 years this Road yet to be Inaugurated. People GO through Village mud roads & Narrow Gully to Reach their 50*80 Sites Is this Acceptable??

Multiple newspapers today carrying articles about the failure of lakes management by GBA and the corporations. The biggest mistake is pushing concerned citizens out of the picture and claiming that sarkar will take care of our lakes instead. That hasn't worked at all - some of the officials in charge have been hostile to citizens even when their own failure is starkly evident.

NPKL site owners need 1. Land acquisition to be completed for continuity & accessibility 2.Basic Amenities- moterable road, electricity, UGD, water supply, street lights 3.Seamless process encouraging construction 4.Police station/chowki & patrolling around layout for security.

@DKShivakumar @mlanaharis @BDAOfficialGok @Captain_Mani72 @ShobhaBJP @nimmasuresh @STSomashekarMLA Absolutely don't know what bda think about their customer, collected exorbitant site value in NPKL upfront and make us wait for 9 year for basic amenities, now if we raise issues and concerns they try to blame us. Funny thing is BDA done many flaws in NPKL, we raised such flaws and for rectification bda planning to ask site owners to pay, first bda must rectify below flaws from their fund before funding anything. 1. BDA is charging NPKL site owners around ₹31,000 for household utility connections. When site prices were fixed, infrastructure costs were already factored into the allotment price based on site dimensions. Why are allottees being asked to pay again for basic utility connectivity in different name? 2. Footpaths were not part of the original layout execution. After repeated objections from site owners, BDA acknowledged the issue and indicated that designs and estimates for footpaths would now be prepared. However, if this is a planning and execution flaw, why should the entire financial burden be passed only to current site owners instead of being addressed institutionally?

If @BDAOfficialGok has allotted sites at #NPKL on no profit, no loss basis as claimed by #BDA, where is this Rs 1000 cr going to come from? #BDA asks NPKL allottees to bear footpath cost, but has funds to fix #GBA roads. @NPKLOpenForum @ashwinmahesh @mlanaharis

Arbitrage has been common in the past at BDA. The courts have frowned on some aspects, like denotification, but there are other ways in which arbitrage still happens. This happens when the government is the proposer, the executor, the developer, the planner ... everything. At each step, one can 'decide'.

Metropolitan Housing Coop Society buys land from @BDAOfficialGok, forms layouts for civil servants & allots sites at far lower prices than #BDA. How's that possible if #BDA is not raking in supernormal profit? Pl see MCHS rates & compare. @mlanaharis @DKShivakumar @ashwinmahesh

If it was only onions, it might be alright! Sometimes, it's the dosa that's missing. Look at the service lane on the ring road in BTM! @namma_BTM can tell you more, I'm sure.

Why is a government body running away from RERA? @BDAOfficialGok's 9-year delay has forced NPKL allottees to bleed money on compounding loan interest and inflated 2026 construction costs. @DKShivakumar avare, treating BDA as exempt from accountability is an injustice to honest citizens. Enforce RERA mandates, penalize the delay, and expedite handovers now! @BDAOfficialGok wants allottees' money upfront but refuses to be accountable under RERA rules! 9 years of infrastructure delays have ruined our home dreams, leaving us trapped under massive loan interest & skyrocketing material costs. No more excuses. @mlanaharis @ShobhaBJP @nimmasuresh @STSomashekarMLA @OfficeRera @Captain_Mani72 @TVMohandasPai @ashwinmahesh @MoHUA_India @indSupremeCourt @SupremeCourtIND @kiranshaw

There is nothing innovative about BWSSB. Instead of this kind of hubris, they should keep their minds focused on improving metrics for performance to a global standard and then think about innovations for the rest of the world.

"Land acquisition issues" is a failed excuse. If @BDAOfficialGok didn't have clear possession of the land, why allot sites by collecting money from the public 9 years ago? Thousands of families are trapped for 9 years while basic infrastructure is still "work in progress."

We have a strange situation where a regulatory authority with domain knowledge gives a verdict, it is upheld by the appellate authority for that subject which also has domain knowledge, but then the verdict is stayed by a court which is not staffed for that expertise. BDA should not have appealed this case. Land acquisition is a choice that the authority has made. IF that is an unpredictable process, why not drop it?

@BDAOfficialGok Compound walls were constructed based on 9 years earlier BDA marking stones and subsequent site verification carried out before construction. However, recent yellow demarcation markings now appear to indicate a different boundary alignment??? If the latest markings are correct, why do they differ from the earlier demarcation on which site owners seen from 9 years, relied for compound wall and construction? Rework utility connections? Such inconsistencies in site demarcation create confusion, require rework of household connections, and potentially lead to future disputes for allottees. @DKShivakumar @mlanaharis @ShobhaBJP @nimmasuresh @STSomashekarMLA @naveenmzs @nkaggere @ChristinMP_ @BoskyKhanna @Lolita_TNIE @tulasikVV @sampathtke01

😀 Pics and videos clearly show yellow markings, dimension demarcation, and numbering activities happening across the layout. If these are not being carried out by or under BDA-authorised teams, then who is doing them??

Thank you for the detailed clarification from BDA Helpline. It is encouraging to see acknowledgement of legacy issues in NPKL and the continued commitment towards completing pending infrastructure and rectification works. However, site owners now look forward to seeing these issues resolved meaningfully on ground. At the same time, the concerns being raised by site owners are based on actual ground observations over the last 9 years, repeated review meetings, official statements, and implementation changes noticed by residents themselves. 1) If the current activities are not officially termed as “survey,” then clarity may kindly be provided on what exactly the ongoing demarcation, numbering corrections, GPS-tagging references, cleaning, and yellow marking activities across the layout are. Even engineers on ground are acknowledging marking discrepancies in certain areas. When visible numbering/marking activities are happening across the layout and discrepancies are observed, later stating “no survey activity” doesn't make any sense. 2) Regarding footpaths, site owners welcome that the matter is under consideration. However, this concern was officially raised years ago and repeatedly discussed in review meetings where it was acknowledged that footpaths were not planned in any roads. Hence, residents will naturally continue to follow up until a concrete Board decision and implementation roadmap emerge. 3) On deadlines, site owners understand external constraints like bitumen shortage. However, concerns arise because earlier status presentations and public communications often projected works as completed or on track, while later in very recent review meetings reflected different ground realities. 4) Public participation should not be viewed negatively. Many active NPKL site owners have invested life savings, waited nearly a decade, and closely tracked the project throughout. Their feedback comes from lived experience and continuous observation on ground, not from assumptions. 5) Transparency, open inspections, comparative scheme-plan discussions, and timely clarification of implementation issues will only strengthen public confidence further. Ultimately, site owners want the outcome — a genuinely well-planned, safe, transparent, and fully developed NPKL for future residents.

@DKShivakumar @mlanaharis @nimmasuresh @STSomashekarMLA In a review meeting nearly 5 months ago, @Captain_Mani72, a clear process was promised for site cleaning, culvert clearing, surveying, and installing stone markings/numbering,signboards to @BDAOfficialGok - The plan was to complete one pilot sector, conduct a joint inspection with site owners, and scale it across all blocks only after everyone’s nod. Unfortunately, this promised framework was completely bypassed. Instead, site and culvert cleaning, surveys, and yellow-paint numbering have commenced in a few blocks without proper plan and flpw. This haphazard execution has led to a mismatch between the original numbers from 9 years ago , the new markings and GPS tagging. We need immediate clarity on two critical fronts: 1) The mismatch between the original site numbering from 9 years ago and the recent road yellow paint numbering. 2) The discrepancy between the survey boundaries established 9 years ago and the current yellow paint markings. While the engineers acknowledges these errors on a one-off basis when approached by worried site owners, fixing individual complaints reactively won't solve a systemic failure. Executing surveys and numbering in this flawed manner is a recipe for permanent litigation and chaos for thousands of allottees. We need the promised systematic approach, not rushed, erroneous paint jobs. @BDAOfficialGok @mlanaharis In attached video culvert, sites not cleaned, yellow marking done by missing site numbers.

😀 In review meetings, you yourself advised EO and teams to apply common sense in planning and execution. In the May first-week meeting also, you acknowledged during the live telecast that sections of the BDA team lacked sufficient expertise and foresight. If required, those clips can also be shared. If such challenges exist even during your tenure while actively monitoring issues, one can imagine how many flaws may have accumulated over the last 9 years during earlier planning and execution stages. Yes, teams may now be committed to progressing works, but many concerns being raised today are also linked to current implementation — for example, parks shown adjacent to sites without proper buffers, despite earlier existence of a 3m walkway and your own clear directions during meetings. Yet explanations were being given using unrelated private layout examples to justify implementation decisions. Similarly: • March completion deadlines were missed, with only around 85% asphalting . • Electrification and streetlight works accelerated only after deadlines. • Footpath proposal preparation and board submission were instructed few months ago, yet no proposal is still visible. • Large-scale site cleaning, survey, demarcation, and numbering activities are now ongoing while site owners are observing inconsistencies compared to earlier markings — and now even engineers are acknowledging marking-related issues. Public is not blind, For BDA end users and public confidence will improve more through transparency, teamwork, accountability, and issue resolution on ground rather than repeated image-management narratives by authority, authority SM team, Fan follower whenever issues are highlighted. If what NPKL site owners are highlighting is truly far from ground reality, we are always ready to acknowledge it and apologise immediately.

The uncanny power of single words @ayyorama deccanherald.com/opinion/the… via @deccanherald