Karnataka High Court Rebuffs Anekal Housing Project in Elephant Corridor

The Karnataka High Court has observed that elephant corridors are an essential part of natural wildlife habitats and cannot be displaced at will for urban development. A Division Bench comprising Justices DK Singh and H Shanthi Bhushan made the observation while addressing a dispute over the acquisition of agricultural and horticultural land in Anekal taluk of Bengaluru Urban district for a housing project.

The Bench held that while development and urbanisation are important, they must be pursued by balancing environmental and wildlife interests. The court stated that elephants cannot be treated as occupants without rights whose habitats can be altered arbitrarily, emphasising that elephant corridors are not merely passages but integral to the animals' existence.

The case arose after landowners in Anekal challenged the acquisition of their properties for a Karnataka Housing Board project, arguing that the lands were their sole source of livelihood. The court had previously stayed the acquisition following an alert from the Deputy Conservator of Forests at Bannerghatta National Park, which indicated that the proposed site was situated within the park's eco-sensitive zone.

Bannerghatta National Park serves as a crucial elephant habitat and movement landscape as part of the Mysore Elephant Reserve. In an August 29 order, the High Court clarified that while land can be acquired for public purposes, no public purpose can supersede the objective of environmental and ecological conservation.

Although the Karnataka Housing Board obtained limited environmental clearance, the Bench noted that the project would significantly impact the Karadikkal-Madeshwara Elephant Corridor. The Forest Department had previously raised warnings that the housing project could aggravate human-wildlife conflict in the area, concerns the court found had been overlooked during approvals.

The High Court held that the land acquisition proceedings had been conducted without undertaking necessary scientific environmental impact assessments and socio-ecological evaluations, ruling that ecological safeguards must take precedence.