Karnataka High Court upholds BDA’s notice to acquire land for construction of peripheral ring road between Hosur and Tumakur

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

A single judge Justice E. WITH. Indiresh upheld 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.

It said:

“I am of the view that since the respondent-BDA has laid the road on the Peripheral Ring Road (Part II) for more than 80% of the project and thus keeping in view the difficulties arising in connection with the construction of the Metro Station, Service Road, to enable the residents in the vicinity to reach the main roads and also taking necessary precautions for the safety of the vehicles and the public at large, I am of the view that no interference is required to set aside the impugned notices issued by the responding authorities for the purpose of forming a peripheral ring road (Part II).»

A lot of petitions were submitted by the owners whose land was purchased for the project. It was submitted that more than ten years have passed since the impugned notices were issued, no arbitral award has been passed till date and therefore the entire acquisition proceedings have to be set aside.

The landowners also contended that the authorities have not taken possession of the land in question, which is not owned by the BDA and therefore the entire acquisition procedure is in violation of Section 36(3) of the BDA Act.

Finally, it was submitted that the acquisition proceedings were left to the BDA and the authority failed to complete the project for which the relevant land was claimed to have been acquired as per the notifications and therefore the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act.

The BDA raised the issue of delay and delay as the petitions were filed three years after the commencement of the acquisition. He pointed out that the award decision had already been issued in favor of some landowners and the possession mahazar had been drawn up and handed over to the engineering department.

The counsel for the authority also argued that under Section 69(2) of the Karnataka Town and Village Planning Act, 1961, the road construction case will not be stayed. It was stated that the main trunk road is 10.35 km, of the said stretch, 8.53 km of the road has already been constructed and the remaining 1.8 km is pending due to litigation.

Conclusions:

Rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs that the defendant government changed the route of the road, the court noted:I am of the view that this aspect relating to the expediency of the plot of land cannot be disturbed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.»

The court sent Dr. Shivaram Karanth Case Layout wherein the Supreme Court directed the BDA to arbitrate and take possession of the lands claimed for the Peripheral Ring Road Scheme (Part II) and the State Government was ordered to take possession of the notified land for the purpose of completing the Peripheral Ring Road (Part II) in favor of the respondent-BDA. It said:

“Having regard to the factual aspects on record as well as the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with a clear direction to complete the entire project at the earliest for the convenience of the public in Bangalore, I am of the view that no interference is called for in setting aside the acquisition proceedings.»

Regarding the delay in rendering the arbitration award, as well as regarding some motions, since the arbitration award was not made, the court noted:The respondent-BDA should take necessary steps to award the land used for the said project at the earliest and to compensate those who lost the land keeping in view Article 300A of the Constitution of India.»

The Court then emphasized that while acquiring land for the purpose of constructing a road, the acquisition must be for other ancillary purposes including providing facilities for truck terminals, filling stations, sky tracks, bus depots and other common facilities, etc., for pedestrian use, etc.

“If the respondent authorities are to provide such facilities under such conditions, there would be chances of minimal change in alignment which could be ignored keeping in mind the greater interest of the public who cannot be blamed for what land is required by the respondent authorities ,“, he added.

Accordingly, he partially allowed the petition and directed the BDA to take possession of the land in dispute if it was not taken by the date and to take a decision if not within six months.

Speaking: Senior Advocate Padmanabha V. Mahale on behalf of Advocate Anandraj. Advocate Vinod Prasad. Lawyer HK Sundaresh. Lawyer M. Srinivasa. Lawyer M. Shivaprakash. Advocate Uday, for CM Nagabhushana Advocate for the Petitioners; senior lawyer G. WITH. Kannur, from advocate Murugesh V. Charati, from BDA; HCGP Manjunath K for State.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 4

Case Name: 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 AND 26090 OF 2022.

Click here to read/download the order