The Karnataka High Court has upheld the Bangalore Development Authority’s land acquisition for the Banashankari Sixth Stage expansion and a connecting road from Kanakapura to Banashankari, while warning officials that violations of the authority’s legal guidelines could lead to action against them.
A division bench comprising Justices D.K. Singh and T.M. Nadaf passed the order while hearing BDA’s appeal against a March 7, 2024 order of a single judge. The single-judge order had favoured landowners from Gubbalala village who challenged the acquisition.
The division bench examined earlier orders passed by co-ordinate benches in cases connected with the same project. It noted BDA’s submission that a substantial part of the Banashankari Sixth Stage project had already been implemented. On that basis, the bench set aside the single-judge order and upheld the acquisition carried out by the development authority.
The landowners had argued that adjoining parcels had been excluded from the acquisition and that they should receive similar relief. They also submitted that BDA could not develop a layout effectively if land was acquired only in small, fragmented parcels. The court was further informed that BDA had withdrawn an appeal against a single-judge order in a similar matter.
While dealing with the land-acquisition dispute, the bench also examined how BDA manages its court cases. It directed the authority to strictly follow its own guidelines and circulars when handling litigation. The court warned that any violation would be treated seriously and that the officials responsible could be held accountable and face appropriate action.
The bench sought clarification from the BDA commissioner on whether the decision to withdraw the appeal had been taken on the commissioner’s instructions or on the basis of a resolution of the BDA board. The court was told that former BDA commissioner N. Jayaram had directed the withdrawal. Although Jayaram submitted an explanation, the bench was not satisfied with it.
To correct what the court described as a systemic lapse in the authority’s functioning, the bench directed the serving commissioner, P. Manivannan, to submit an affidavit outlining measures to ensure that future cases are handled according to BDA’s prescribed procedures. The commissioner submitted the affidavit on July 28.
The affidavit stated that BDA had issued an office memorandum or circular on July 27 to improve the handling of judicial matters. Under the circular, all legal notices, petitions, applications, summonses, court orders, judgments, contempt notices and other legal communications must be forwarded to the chief legal officer on the same day or the following day.
The circular also assigns responsibility for complying with approved legal action to zonal commissioners and other officials. BDA has been directed to digitise records of all judicial cases. A committee headed by the BDA commissioner has also been formed to decide whether appeals should be filed.
The committee will include a lawyer appointed by the commissioner or an additional advocate general, the chief legal officer, a representative of the law firm, the concerned zonal commissioner and the head of the relevant department. The court’s directions place the authority’s litigation systems and the Gubbalala acquisition within the same accountability framework, with the immediate next step being implementation of the procedures set out in BDA’s affidavit and circular.
