Karnataka High Court Upholds BDA Land Acquisition for Banashankari Extension
The Karnataka High Court has firmly upheld the Bangalore Development Authority's acquisition of land for extending Banashankari VI Stage. This decision connects the existing layout through Kanakapura Road, supporting urban development plans.
Court Dismisses Landowners' Appeals
A division bench comprising Justice DK Singh and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed the appeals filed by K Gangamma and other landowners. These appeals challenged a single bench order from April 8, 2024, which had already dismissed their petitions against the acquisition.
The disputed land involves 75 guntas in Gubbalala village. Initial notification for acquisition occurred on November 17, 2002, with the final notification issued on September 9, 2003.
Landowners' Claims and Court's Findings
The appellants raised several key arguments. They claimed they did not receive the same benefit as other landowners whose 657 acres and 15 guntas were excluded from acquisition after payment of betterment charges.
They also argued the scheme should be treated as lapsed because implementation did not occur within the scheduled five-year period. According to their contention, this lapse meant their land should be returned to them.
The division bench thoroughly examined these claims. It found the argument about denied fair opportunity factually incorrect. The court noted public hearings were indeed conducted, objections were properly considered, and necessary modifications were made to the scheme.
The bench clarified that the BDA Act does not require personal or oral hearings beyond consideration of written objections. It referenced the D Hemachandra Sagar case where the high court took a similar stand.
Procedural Compliance and Scheme Implementation
The court held that the development scheme showed broad compliance with Section 16 of the BDA Act. This compliance ensured procedural sufficiency throughout the acquisition process.
The bench noted the single bench had already considered important facts. The state government granted approval for issuing final notification for only 750 acres of land, indicating the original scheme underwent modification.
From these 750 acres, the BDA took possession of 580 acres and 18 guntas. This land was handed over for layout formation and creation of 5,991 sites. Out of these, 4,983 sites have already been allotted to beneficiaries.
This substantial implementation demonstrates the scheme's progress and public benefit, the court observed.
Court's Final Observations and Ruling
The division bench rejected the petitioners' submission about scheme lapse under Section 27 of the BDA Act. It delivered a comprehensive ruling supporting the acquisition's legality.
The acquisition process was lawful, fair, and necessary for urban planning, the bench stated. It emphasized rigorous following of statutory processes under the BDA Act-1976 and adherence to all procedural safeguards.
The court explained that deletion of certain lands was based on rational considerations. Public interest in urban expansion outweighs individual interests in this case, according to the bench's assessment.
Given the significant urban development already achieved through this acquisition, the court warned that any interference now would cause irreparable harm to public planning and infrastructure development.
The division bench concluded the BDA's acquisition is legally sound. It dismissed the writ appeals filed by landowners in the interest of justice, equity, and public welfare.
