In a significant development for the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and site allottees, the Karnataka High Court has upheld the acquisition of certain land parcels in Hemmigepura and Ganakallu villages of Kengeri hobli for the Banashankari VI Stage project. A division bench comprising Justices D.K. Singh and S. Rachaiah passed the order, reversing the decision of a single bench dated January 27, 2025.
Court's Observations
The division bench observed that once land is acquired by the state government, free from all encumbrances, there is no question of quashing the acquisition. It termed the petition as a gross abuse of the process of the court and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the landowners who were the petitioners before the single bench. The amount is to be deposited with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund.
Background of the Case
The preliminary notification for the Banashankari VI Stage project was issued on November 15, 2000, followed by the final notification on August 21, 2001. The petitioners, who owned land in Hemmigepura and Ganakallu villages, challenged the acquisition in 2022. On January 27, 2025, a single bench ruled in their favor, leading the BDA and site allottees to appeal.
Senior advocate G.S. Kannur, representing the BDA, argued that the petitioners failed to disclose that a similar challenge in 2019 had been dismissed. Therefore, their petitions should not have been entertained. The division bench agreed, holding that the single bench's finding that the acquisition had lapsed was “absolutely incorrect.”
Key Facts
- The preliminary notification covered 2,138 acres and 4 guntas, but the government approved the scheme for 1,598 acres and 2 guntas.
- The petitioners admitted that possession of 1,203 acres and 18.5 guntas was taken by the BDA, indicating no partial taking of possession.
- The single bench ignored the vital aspect of development and formation of sites, roads, parks, public amenities, and substantial implementation of the scheme.
The division bench's order provides relief to the BDA and thousands of site allottees who had been awaiting clarity on the project. The court emphasized that the acquisition process was valid and that the scheme had been substantially implemented.
