HC upholds BDA land acquisition for Banashankari sixth stage road widening

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the legality of land acquisition carried out by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for the expansion of roads connecting Banashankari Sixth Stage with the existing layout via Kanakapura Road.

A Division Bench comprising Justice DK Singh and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed the appeals filed by K Gangamma and others, who had challenged the acquisition of 75 guntas of land in Gubbalala village. The Bench affirmed an earlier single-judge order dated April 4, 2024, which had rejected the petitioners’ plea.

The appellants had contended that they were entitled to the same benefits extended to other landowners whose lands, measuring 657 acres and 15 guntas, were excluded from acquisition upon payment of a betterment levy. They also argued that the development scheme had lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act, as it was not implemented within five years, and sought the return of their land.

Rejecting these arguments, the Division Bench held that the claim of denial of a fair opportunity to raise objections was factually incorrect. The court observed that public hearings had been conducted, objections were duly considered, and necessary modifications were made during the planning process.

Referring to its earlier ruling in the Hemachandra Sagar case, the Bench clarified that the BDA Act does not mandate personal or oral hearings, apart from considering written objections. It further noted that compliance with Section 16 of the BDA Act was sufficient to establish procedural fairness in preparing a development scheme.

The court also took note of the fact that the State government had approved the issuance of the final notification for only 750 acres, modifying the original plan. Of this, the BDA had acquired 580 acres and 18 guntas of land, which was subsequently utilised to form layouts and carve out 5,991 sites, of which 4,983 had already been allotted. This, the Bench said, clearly demonstrated substantial implementation of the project.

In view of this progress, the court rejected the contention that the scheme had lapsed under Section 27 of the Act. It held that the land acquisition process was lawful, fair, and essential for urban planning, and that the statutory procedure under the BDA Act, 1976, had been strictly followed with all procedural safeguards in place.

Emphasising public interest, the Bench observed that urban expansion and infrastructure development outweigh individual private interests. “Any interference at this stage would cause irreparable harm to public projects and infrastructure development,” the court said, while dismissing the appeals and upholding the BDA’s acquisition as legally valid and in the larger interest of justice, equity, and public welfare.