Karnataka High Court Upholds Banashankari VI Stage Land Acquisition
On June 5, 2026, the Karnataka High Court upheld the acquisition of land in Hemmigepura and Ganakallu villages of Kengeri hobli for Bengaluru's Banashankari VI Stage development project.
A division bench comprising Justices DK Singh and S Rachaiah passed the order, providing major relief to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and site allottees. The ruling reversed a previous single bench decision dated January 27, 2025.
The court stated that once land is acquired by the state government free from all encumbrances, the acquisition cannot be quashed. It described the petition challenging the acquisition as a "gross abuse of the process of the court."
As a result of the ruling, the court imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the landowners who had filed the petition. This cost will be directed to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund.
The legal dispute over the project has spanned over two decades. The preliminary notification for the Banashankari VI Stage project was first issued on November 15, 2000, followed by the final notification on August 21, 2001. The landowners challenged the acquisition in 2022, which initially led to the single bench ruling in their favour in early 2025. The BDA and site allottees subsequently appealed that decision.
During the hearings, senior advocate GS Kannur, representing the BDA, submitted that the petitioners had failed to disclose that a similar challenge in 2019 had already been dismissed. He argued that their petitions should not have been admitted in the first place.
The division bench agreed, holding that the single bench's finding that the acquisition had lapsed was "absolutely incorrect."
The preliminary notification was originally issued for 2,138 acres and 4 guntas of land. However, the state government approved the scheme for 1,598 acres and 2 guntas. The petitioners admitted that the BDA had already taken possession of 1,203 acres and 18.5 guntas.
The division bench noted that there cannot be a partial taking of possession. It ruled that the single bench had ignored vital aspects of development, including the formation of sites, roads, parks, public amenities, and the overall substantial implementation of the scheme.
