Karnataka High Court Upholds Banashankari VI Stage Land Acquisition
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the land acquisition for the Banashankari VI Stage project in the Hemmigepura and Ganakallu villages of Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru. Reversing a previous single-bench decision, the court's ruling provides major relief to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and site allottees by validating the acquisition of these land parcels.
A division bench comprising Justices DK Singh and S Rachaiah passed the order, stating that once land is acquired by the state government free from all encumbrances, there is no question of quashing the acquisition. The court characterized the landowners' petition as a "gross abuse of the process of the court."
In addition to dismissing the challenge, 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 dates back to the project's inception over two decades ago. 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.
While the preliminary notification was issued for 2,138 acres and 4 guntas, the state government ultimately approved the scheme for 1,598 acres and 2 guntas. The landowners admitted that the BDA had already taken possession of 1,203 acres and 18.5 guntas.
The landowners filed their legal challenge in 2022. On January 27, 2025, a single bench ruled in their favor, declaring that the acquisition had lapsed. This prompted the BDA and site allottees to appeal the decision.
During the appeal hearings, senior advocate GS Kannur, representing the BDA, argued that the petitioners had failed to disclose that a similar challenge filed in 2019 had already been dismissed. He argued that their subsequent petitions should not have been admitted.
The division bench agreed, calling the single bench's finding that the acquisition had lapsed "absolutely incorrect." The bench noted that the single bench had ignored critical aspects of development that had already occurred, including the formation of sites, roads, parks, public amenities, and the substantial implementation of the scheme.
