Karnataka High Court Cancels BDA’s Land Takeover

Landowners Get Big Relief

The Karnataka High Court has canceled the Bangalore Development Authority’s (BDA) land takeover. This decision brings significant relief to landowners. The BDA failed to take possession of the land it tried to acquire 24 years ago.

Case Details

The case involved land in Hemmigepura and Ganakallu villages. These villages are in Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru South taluk. The land includes 350 sites. The petition was filed by H Nagarajaiah and three others.

The BDA planned to take over the land for the Banashankari VI Stage layout. They issued a preliminary notice on November 15, 2000. The final notice came on August 21, 2001.

Court’s Verdict

Justice ES Indiresh stated in his order:

“The BDA did not take possession of the lands. Most of the lands in the takeover proceedings were removed. This was due to an earlier order by this court and the government. Therefore, the BDA’s claim that the scheme has been mostly implemented cannot be accepted.”

The judge added:

“The takeover of the subject lands is illegal. The authorities abandoned the scheme.”

Landowners’ Arguments

• The landowners stated that the BDA admitted it hadn’t taken possession of the land. This was in a letter dated January 23, 2002.
• After Nagarajaiah’s request, the then Chief Minister ordered to stop the takeover on December 15, 2010.
• A later request made on June 22, 2022, is still being considered. The court was told about this.

Evidence and Fairness

The petitioners showed land record extracts. These proved their continued ownership of the properties. They pointed out that various lands in Ganakallu village were previously removed from takeover. This followed high court orders. Similar decisions were made for land in Somapura village.

The BDA’s claim of mostly implementing the scheme was challenged. Justice Indiresh noted that for the total 2138 acres meant for takeover, the authorities did not show evidence of substantial implementation.

The judge stressed that the court had previously canceled notices for certain other lands under the same notice. He observed that while other owners’ lands were removed from takeover with proper notices, the subject land did not get such consideration. This was unfair under Article 14 of the Constitution.