Catering to the housing needs of all in a burgeoning city like Bengaluru has been one of the core functions of Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and its predecessor City Improvement Trust Board (CITB). A roster of layouts built by these bodies from Jayanagar to Banashankari, J.P. Nagar, and HSR Layout shows that the duo did effectively build most parts of Bengaluru. Waiting for a BDA site to build a house was a common trajectory in the city.
However, in the 2000s, there was a big shift in BDA layouts. Many of these publicly acquired plots have come to be held, fenced off, and passed around as assets, while large parts of the layouts remain without people living in them. While the promise of housing was repeatedly used to justify the acquisition of vast stretches of land on Bengaluru’s outskirts in the name of public purpose, empty layouts tell otherwise.
Direct sale deed
In its early years, the BDA’s own rules were designed to ensure that these sites turned into homes rather than idle pieces of land. Under the original system, sites were allotted through a “lease-cum-sale deed” mechanism. Allottees were required to construct a house within a stipulated period, usually up to 10 years, before the final sale deed was issued. Until construction was completed, they had no legal right to sell the site. Urban experts say this made it difficult to treat BDA plots as passive investments. Instead, the system nudged beneficiaries towards building and occupying houses, offering middle-class families a slow but relatively secure route to home ownership.
That framework began to unravel around the year 2000, when the BDA abandoned the lease-cum-sale deed system and started issuing outright sale deeds. With this shift, allottees became full owners much earlier and were free to sell their sites without first constructing houses. Property consultant K.R. Ramesh said this marked a clear turning point in how BDA layouts began to function. “Once ownership was delinked from construction, the incentive structure completely changed,” he said.
As the city expanded and land prices rose sharply, plots that were meant for housing became investment instruments. Mr. Ramesh pointed out that instead of enforcing construction timelines by cancelling allotments, a power the BDA already had, the authority began relying on penalties to regularise non-construction. What was meant to act as a deterrent, he said, gradually turned into a fee that allowed owners to hold land without building. “People who bought sites for modest amounts could afford to pay penalties later, while the land value multiplied many times over,” Mr. Ramesh said, adding that over time, penalties stopped discouraging speculation and instead legitimised it.
The impact of this shift is visible across several large BDA layouts . In Vishweshwaraiah Layout, years after sites were allotted, vast stretches remain without houses. Roads have been laid and plots clearly demarcated, but not the houses. Many sites are fenced off or display name boards identifying owners, without any signs of occupation. The area functions less like a residential neighbourhood and more like a land bank.
A similar pattern can be seen in Arkavathi and Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layouts, where sites were offered at comparatively lower prices with the stated aim of encouraging housing. Despite this, construction has progressed slowly, and lower land costs have not translated into proportionately higher home-building. Across layouts, large numbers of plots remain untouched even as land values continue to rise.
Nearly one lakh vacant sites
The BDA estimates that nearly one lakh sites across its layouts do not have houses built on them. Faced with a growing stock of vacant plots, the BDA recently proposed a one-time non-construction fine on allottees who fail to build houses within three years of receiving their sites. While the move is framed as an attempt to curb speculative holding and push owners to build, experts point out that the very need for such penalties highlights how far BDA layouts have drifted away from their housing mandate. If plots were being used as intended, they argue, there would be little need for punitive measures to force construction.
Urban expert Ashwin Mahesh said this helps explain a contradiction in the BDA’s role. Land is acquired by the authority by citing housing needs, even as much of the housing built in Bengaluru over the past two decades has come up on land not acquired by the BDA. The Authority, over the period, has come to function as a land allocator rather than a housing provider. Penalties and post-facto regularisation mechanisms, he said, have allowed the system to drift away from its original purpose, enabling land holding and value capture instead of neighbourhood formation.
Infrastructure gaps
At the same time, delays in providing basic infrastructure such as water supply, underground drainage, electricity and road connectivity, have played a major role in slowing construction in several layouts.
This has created a self-reinforcing cycle where infrastructure delays discourage construction, rising land values make holding plots financially attractive, and the cost of constructing houses increases over time. For middle-class families, many planned layouts have failed to turn into livable neighbourhoods, even as land acquired using citing public purpose remains locked in investment cycles.
While the BDA is attempting to course-correct through penalties, experts caution that unless ownership rules, construction obligations and timely infrastructure delivery are aligned with the original goal, land acquired in the name of housing is likely to continue producing plots and not homes.
(In this series, we look at the evolution of the BDA as it turns 50 years old)
Published – January 19, 2026 10:06 pm IST
