Bhubaneswar Development Authority
BHUBANESWAR: The Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) flouted its own building norms and showed undue favours to developers for construction of eight high-rises in the city, a latest draft audit note by accountant general (general and social sector) said.
The note, prepared by deputy AG C Veeraraghavan for inclusion in CAG report, said BDA had issued plan approval to a 'power of attorney' holder for a 22-storey building on the outskirts of city illegally. According to norms, it should have been approved in favour of the land owner. The land was jointly owned by two firms and an individual.
In another case, BDA allowed a high-rise in Goutam Nagar here where construction of multi-storey building is prohibited as it was declared a heritage zone. The audit pointed out that BDA lifted the curb for a limited period from 2008 to 2013 by dropping the area from list of heritage zone before classifying it again in the list to favour the particular developer. The developer took permission for the building with a built-up area of 2.45 lakh square feet in April 2009.
The audit note said BDA approved a building on NH-203 though Regulation 58(4) of the Planning and Building Standards Regulations 2008 stipulates that no high-rise can come up within 100 metre of the NH. BDA had illegally given permission to another developer to raise a high-rise on a 62,301 square metre plot though any plot with built up area of 2,000 square metre or more needs permission of Union ministry of environment and forests, the report said.
BDA allowed a builder in April 2009 to develop a multi-storey structure without creating basic amenities. It violated Section 9(7) and 59 of the 2008 regulation.
The audit raised an accusing finger at BDA that the latter approved a building plan, violating the provisions of exterior open spaces between all blocks, restricting light and ventilations between adjacent blocks. BDA did not adhere to norms of plantation in 25% land. The audit said though the AG had sought 14 files from BDA for scrutiny, the latter did not give six on the pretext that three were untraceable. One was seized by the vigilance department and another was lying with legal retainer. BDA vice-chairman Krishan Kumar could not be contacted for comments.