Karnataka High Court upholds DRDO land acquisition in Bengaluru, ends decades-old dispute

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the acquisition of about 1.27 acres of additional land at Bennegahalli in Bengaluru for the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), bringing to an end a legal dispute that stretched across nearly four decades.

A Division Bench of Justices D.K. Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan allowed appeals filed in 2015 by the Union government and the DRDO, and set aside a 2014 order of a single judge that had quashed the acquisition.

The single judge had held that the landowners were not properly heard when their objections to the acquisition were considered. The Division Bench said that instead of quashing the acquisition process itself, the single judge could have directed the Land Acquisition Officer to hear the objections afresh. Quashing the acquisition, the Bench observed, did not appear commensurate with the nature of the alleged procedural lapse, given that the land was acquired not for an ordinary purpose but to protect a defence project area adjacent to it.

The court noted the long and chequered history of the case. The acquisition began with a preliminary notification in 1987. After prolonged litigation and a compromise before the Supreme Court, a fresh notification was issued in 2005 after the earlier award lapsed. The appeals against the 2014 order were filed in 2015 and have taken several years to be decided.

The Bench recorded that the land in question is surrounded by areas already handed over to the DRDO and falls within the protected area of the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR), a DRDO laboratory in Bengaluru. It held that the requirement of a compact and protected area is a relevant consideration in a defence acquisition. The court's reasoning reflects the security requirements of such facilities, where the land around the perimeter is treated as part of a protected zone.

The Bench also addressed the balance between private rights and national security. "We are conscious that the rights of private landowners cannot be disregarded merely because the acquisition is for a public purpose. At the same time, the rights of the landowners have to be harmonised with the larger constitutional obligation of the State to protect the nation and to provide the infrastructure necessary for national defence and security," the court observed.

The court made clear that the landowners' rights in respect of compensation, award, apportionment or disbursement remain protected under the applicable law. In effect, the dispute over whether the acquisition itself is valid has ended, but the landowners retain the legal remedies available to them on the question of how much they are paid and how that amount is distributed.

Under Indian law, landowners whose land is acquired for a public purpose are entitled to compensation, and the process requires that their objections be considered before an award is made. Courts have repeatedly held that procedural safeguards exist to protect landowners, while also recognising that the State may acquire land for purposes such as defence and public infrastructure.

The ruling clears the way for the DRDO to retain and secure the additional land around the CAIR facility. CAIR is one of the DRDO's laboratories in Bengaluru, working on artificial intelligence and robotics technologies.

The case also illustrates how land disputes involving defence establishments can remain unresolved for decades, moving through successive notifications, litigation before different courts, and appeals. For residents of Bennegahalli who own the affected land, the immediate consequence is that the acquisition stands, while questions relating to compensation will be settled separately under the law.