Curation Team
BENGALURU: Karnataka high court has upheld the acquisition of land for the expansion of Banashankari 6th Stage layout in various villages of Uttarahalli and Kengeri hobli in Bengaluru South taluk, delivering a victory for Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).
The case involved preliminary and final notifications issued by BDA in 2002 and 2003, respectively, for land acquisition. From 750 acres acquired under the final notification, BDA formed 5,991 residential sites of different dimensions, with 4,983 already allotted to various applicants.
Gangamma and other petitioners, including land/site owners and persons operating nurseries and gardens in the area, had challenged these notifications. Their petitions were initially dismissed by a single bench on June 6, 2006, leading them to file writ appeals.
The petitioners’ primary contention was the BDA had substantially reduced the acquisition area from the originally proposed 1,532 acres and 17 guntas in the preliminary notification to only 750 acres in the final notification, excluding more than 50% of the initially notified lands.
They argued that BDA failed to consider their requests for deletion of lands from acquisition, which they claimed was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Representing BDA, senior advocate GS Kannur countered that the acquisition proceedings were transparent, fair, and free of discrimination or mala fide intention. He emphasised that more than 80% of the residential sites from the acquired area had already been allotted, and substantial expenditure amounting to crores of rupees had been incurred for infrastructure development, including roads, drainage systems, and levelling.
After examining the evidence, a division bench, comprising Justices K Somashekar and Venkatesh Naik T concluded that the BDA’s acquisition process was lawful, fair, and necessary for urban planning. The court observed that the statutory process under BDA Act, 1976, had been rigorously followed with all procedural safeguards adhered to.
The bench further noted that the deletion of lands was based on rational considerations, and the public interest in urban expansion outweighed the individual interests of the appellants. Given the significant urban development already achieved through the acquisition, the court ruled that any interference at this stage would cause irreparable harm to public planning and infrastructure development.
The division bench dismissed the writ appeals, stating BDA’s acquisition was legally sound and that dismissing appellants’ claims was necessary “in the interest of justice, equity, and public welfare.”
