High Court Dismisses Challenge to Bidadi Township Land Acquisition, Rejects Farmer Protests as Legal Ground
The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the state government's notification to acquire 7,400 acres across nine villages for the Greater Bengaluru Integrated Township (GBIT) project, commonly known as the Bidadi township project. The project is considered a priority of Chief Minister D K Shivakumar and has faced opposition since the preliminary land acquisition notification was issued in March.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K S Hemalekha dismissed the petition filed by advocate Rajesh Kampalapura Basavanna. The court orally remarked that it cannot decide on the merits of the scheme under which the land is being acquired. The petitioner, arguing in person, sought to quash the final land acquisition notification issued on June 13 under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act (KUDA) and to stay all tender proceedings initiated on June 16. He also requested a direction to the state government to constitute an expert committee to examine the feasibility of implementing the GBIT project in non-fertile regions, in line with sustainable development policies.
Basavanna argued that farmers have been protesting for over 500 days against the acquisition. He claimed that the acquisition violates the Right to Profession under Article 19 of the Constitution, as farmers want to continue farming and do not want their land converted into a real estate project. He asserted that there is no public purpose and that the state failed to conduct a social impact assessment before issuing the notifications. He also contended that the acquisition notifications were issued under KUDA, 1987, while compensation would be paid under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, arguing that the 2013 Act's other provisions should also apply.
The bench orally remarked, “That is no basis in law because the acquisition is not under that Act.” In its order, the court stated: “The only contention advanced by petitioner is that said notification pursuant to a development scheme of the said (KUDA) Act is illegal, since the quantum of compensation is payable under the Right to Fair Compensation Act and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, all other provisions of the said act are also required to be complied with and therefore the said notification is illegal. We are unable to accept this said contention. The petition is accordingly dismissed.”
During the hearing, Basavanna also submitted that after the next Assembly election, a new chief minister could be appointed who might “bypass” the scheme. The bench strongly objected, stating: “We are not here for political discourses; we will impose cost on you. You may have a vital challenge somewhere, we are only seeing if there is any which can be supported in law.”
