BENGALURU: The High Court has upheld the Bangalore Development Authority’s (BDA) acquisition of land for extending Banashankari VI Stage, connecting the existing layout via Kanakapura Road.
A division bench, comprising Justice DK Singh and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, rejected the appeals filed by K Gangamma and others against a single bench ruling that dismissed their petitions challenging the acquisition of 75 guntas in Gubbalala village. The land was initially notified on November 17, 2002, with the final notification released on September 9, 2003.
The appellants argued they were unfairly treated compared to owners of 657 acres and 15 guntas who were excluded from the acquisition, having paid betterment charges. They contended that since the scheme wasn’t executed within five years, it should be deemed lapsed, and their land should be returned.
The single bench dismissed their petitions on April 8, 2024, prompting the appeal to the division bench, which reiterated the appellants’ claims.
The division bench clarified that the appellants’ assertion regarding a lack of fair opportunity to present objections was incorrect, citing that public hearings were held, objections were addressed, and modifications were made accordingly.
Referring to a similar precedent in the D Hemachandra Sagar case, the bench stated, “The BDA Act does not require personal or oral hearings beyond written objections.” As long as the development scheme had broad compliance with Section 16 of the BDA Act, procedural adequacy was satisfied.
The bench noted that the single bench acknowledged the state government’s approval for the final notification concerning only 750 acres of land, which modified the original scheme.
Out of the 750 acres, the BDA acquired 580 acres and 18 guntas, which were subsequently transformed into layouts for 5,991 sites; 4,983 of which have already been allotted, showcasing significant scheme implementation. The division bench rejected the argument that the scheme lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act.
In its ruling, the bench stated, “The acquisition process was lawful, fair, and essential for urban planning. The BDA Act-1976 was stringently followed, ensuring all necessary procedural safeguards. The exclusions were based on rational considerations, with the public interest in urban development superseding individual claims. Given the substantial urban growth resulting from the acquisition, any intervention at this stage would inflict irreparable harm on public infrastructure and planning. Thus, we find the BDA’s acquisition legally valid, and the appellants’ claims are dismissed in the interest of justice and public welfare.”
