Karnataka High Court Upholds BDA's Land Acquisition Notifications For Construction Of Peripheral Ring Road Between Hosur And Tumakur

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

Single judge Justice E S Indiresh upheld the Preliminary as well as the 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.

It said,

“I am of the view that, as the respondent-BDA has laid road in Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II) for more than 80% of the project and as such, taking into consideration the difficulties arises in respect of the construction of metro station, service road to enable the nearby habitants to reach main roads as well as taking necessary precaution of the safety of the vehicles and public in general, I am of the view that, no interference be called for in respect of the quashing the impugned notifications issued by the respondent-authorities for the purpose of formation of Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II).”

A batch of petitions were filed by owners whose lands were acquired for the purpose of the project. It was contended that over a decade lapsed since passing of the impugned notifications yet, no award was passed till date and therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings require to be quashed.

The landowners further contended that the authorities failed to take possession, the lands in question are not vested with the BDA and therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings are contrary to Section 36(3) of the BDA Act.

Finally, it was argued that the acquisition proceedings had been abandoned by the BDA and the body 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 proceedings have become lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act.

The BDA raised the issue of delay and laches as the petitions were filed three years after the acquisition was initiated. It submitted that award notices have been already issued in favour of some landowners and the possession mahazar has been drawn and handed over to Engineering Section.

Counsel appearing for the body further submitted that as per Section 69(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, in the matter of construction of road, proceedings will not be lapsed. It was submitted that the major arterial road is for 10.35 Kms, out of the said extent, an extent of 8.53 Kms of road has already been constructed and remaining 1.8 Kms is pending in view of the litigation.

Findings:

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

The Court referred to Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout case wherein the Supreme Court directed the BDA to pass awards and take possession of the lands notified for Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II) Scheme and the State Government was directed to take possession of the notified land for the purpose of completion of Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II) in favour of respondent-BDA. It 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 indication to complete the entire project, at the earliest, to facilitate the public at large, in Bangalore, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in respect of nullifying the acquisition proceedings.”

In regards to delay in passing the award as well as in some petitions, award having not been passed, the court said “the respondent-BDA shall take necessary steps to pass award insofar the land utilized for the said project at the earliest and to pay the compensation to the land losers, taking into consideration Article 300A of Constitution of India.”

The Court then emphasised that while acquiring land for the purpose of construction of the road, acquisition is to be made for other incidental purposes also including providing facilities for the truck terminals, fuel station, sky walk, bus depots and other general facilities etc., to be used by the pedestrians, etc.

“If such facilities have to be provided by the respondent-authorities under such conditions there would be chances of minimum change of alignment which could be ignored by taking into consideration the larger interest of the public, which cannot be faulted for which land is required for the respondent authorities,” it 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 pass the award if not passed, within six months.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Padmanabha V. Mahale, for Advocate Anandraju. Advocate Vinod Prasad. Advocate H.C. Sundaresh. Advocate M. Srinivasa. Advocate M. Shivaprakash. Advocate Uday, for Advocate C.M. Nagabhushana for Petitioners; Senior Advocate G.S. Kannur, for Advocate Murugesh V. Charati, for BDA; HCGP Manjunath K for State.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 4

Case Title: Vanitha M AND The Bangalore Development Authority & 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 Order