The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation petition challenging the state government’s acquisition of 7,400 acres of land for the proposed Greater Bengaluru Integrated Township project.
The decision removes a significant legal obstacle for the mega-township initiative, widely known as the Bidadi township project, which is a key initiative of Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar. The planned land acquisition spans nine villages and has faced local opposition since the state government issued its preliminary notification in March.
Objections To The Acquisition Scheme
A division bench consisting of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha dismissed the petition filed by advocate Rajesh Kampalapura Basavanna, who presented his case in person. Basavanna had petitioned the court to invalidate the final land acquisition notification issued by the state government on June 13 under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act. He also requested a stay on all associated tender proceedings that commenced on June 16.
Additionally, the petitioner asked the court to direct the state government to set up an expert committee. This committee would evaluate whether the township project could be built in non-fertile areas to align with sustainable development policies.
Petitioner Cites Protests And Legal Conflicts
In his arguments, Basavanna stated that local farmers have been protesting against the land acquisition continuously for more than 500 days. He argued that the acquisition infringes upon the farmers’ constitutional right to practice their profession under Article 19, emphasizing that they want to continue farming rather than have their lands converted into a real estate development.
Basavanna further contended that the project lacked a demonstrated public purpose and pointed out that the government had not conducted a social impact assessment study prior to issuing the preliminary and final acquisition notifications.
He also raised a statutory conflict, arguing that since compensation for land losers is being processed under the federal Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013, the state must also comply with all other provisions of that federal law, even though the acquisition was initiated under the state’s 1987 urban development act.
Court Rejects Legal Arguments And Political Rhetoric
The division bench rejected the petitioner’s legal reasoning, clarifying that because the acquisition was not conducted under the federal 2013 Act, there was no legal requirement to adhere to its entire set of procedures. In its written order, the bench stated it could not accept the argument that the state’s notification was illegal simply because compensation standards from the federal act were being applied. The court also noted during the hearing that it cannot rule on the actual merits of the development scheme.
The proceedings grew tense when Basavanna suggested that a future chief minister appointed after the next assembly election could bypass the current township scheme.
The bench strongly criticized the statement, warning the petitioner that it would impose financial penalties if he continued to introduce political speculation into the courtroom. The judges stated that the court does not engage in political discourse and is strictly responsible for determining if a challenge has valid legal grounds.
