Karnataka High Court upholds BDA’s land acquisition notifications for construction of Hosur-Tumakur ring road

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the notifications issued by the Bengaluru Development Authority to acquire land for the construction of Peripheral Ring Road-II, between Hosur-Mysore Road and Tumakur Road.

sole judge Justice ES Indiresh confirmed the Preliminary and Final Notifications issued in 2005 and 2011 respectively, under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Said,

“I am of the opinion that since the respondent BDA has laid roads on the peripheral ring road (Part II) for more than 80% of the project and as such, keeping in mind the difficulties arising in respect of construction of the metro station, service road to allow nearby inhabitants to reach the main roads, as well as take the necessary precautions for the safety of vehicles and the general public, I consider that no interference is required with respect to the cancellation of the contested notifications issued. by the defendant authorities for the purpose of forming the peripheral ring road (Part II).”

A number of petitions were filed by landowners whose land was acquired for the purposes of the project. It was held that more than a decade has passed since the impugned notifications were passed and till date no award has been passed and therefore the entire acquisition process must be set aside.

The owners further contended that the authorities did not take possession, the lands in question do not belong to the BDA and therefore the entire acquisition procedure is contrary to section 36(3) of the BDA Act.

Finally, it was argued that the acquisition process had been abandoned by the BDA and the agency had not completed the project for which the land in question was said to have been acquired as per the notifications and therefore the acquisition process had been expired under Section 27 of the BDA Act.

The BDA raised the issue of delays and delays as the petitions were filed three years after the procurement began. He claimed that allotment notices have already been issued in favor of some landowners and the mahazar possession has been withdrawn and handed over to the Engineering Section.

The counsel appearing for the body further submitted that as per section 69(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, in matters of road construction, the proceedings will not lapse. It was stated that the main artery has a length of 10.35 kilometers; Of that extension, an extension of 8.53 kilometers has already been built and the remaining 1.8 kilometers are pending in view of the litigation.

Recommendations:

Rejecting the submission of the petitioners that there is a change in the alignment of the road by the respondent authorities, the court said “I am of the opinion that this aspect relating to viability of land cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

The Court referred Dr. Shivaram Karanth Design Case wherein the Supreme Court directed the BDA to pass allotments and take possession of the notified lands for the Peripheral Ring Road Scheme (Part II) and the state government was directed to take possession of the notified lands for the purpose of complete the peripheral ring road (Part-II) in favor of the respondent-BDA. Said,

“Having taken note of the factual aspects on record as well as the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with a clear direction to complete the entire project, at the earliest, to facilitate the general public, in Bangalore, I agree I agree with the view that no interference is required regarding the annulment of the acquisition procedure.“

Regarding the delay in issuing the award, as well as in some petitions, since the award had not been issued, the court said “the respondent-BDA shall take necessary steps to sanction the allotment to the extent of the land utilized for the said project at the earliest and pay compensation to the losers of the land, keeping in mind Article 300A of the Constitution of India .”

The Court then emphasized that while land is acquired for the construction of the road, the acquisition must be made for other incidental purposes including the provision of facilities for truck terminals, fuel station, skywalk, fuel stations. buses and other general facilities, etc. to be used by pedestrians, etc.

“If the respondent authorities were to provide such facilities under such conditions, there would be chances of a minimum change in alignment which could be ignored if the general interest of the public were taken into account, which cannot be blamed for the fact that land is required for the defendant authorities,”he added.

Accordingly, it allowed the petitions in part and directed BDA to take possession of the land in question, if not taken till date, and to approve the allotment if not taken, within six months.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Padmanabha V. Mahale, Advocate Anandraju. Lawyer Vinod Prasad. Advocate HC Sundaresh. Advocate M. Srinivasa. Advocate M. Shivaprakash. Advocate Uday, Advocate CM Nagabhushana, for the petitioners; Senior Advocate GS Kannur, representing Advocate Murugesh V. Charati, representing BDA; HCGP Manjunath K for the state.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 4

Case Title: Vanitha M AND The Bangalore Development Authority and others.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.61154 OF 2014 (LA-BDA) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.50948 OF 2016, 14510 OF 2018, 1201 OF 2020, 8235 OF 2021 & 26090 OF 2022.

Click here to read/download the order