After PRR Cloverleaf Shifted From Their Land, Karnataka HC Gives BDA 6 Months to Decide Whether It Is Needed; Acquisition Notice Stands Quashed If BDA Fails

The petitioners challenged the BDA’s preliminary acquisition notification dated 18 April 2022, issued under Sections 17(1) and 17(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, insofar as it covered their lands at Venkatala Village, including Sy. Nos. 8, 8/1, 67/1 and 68/1, for the Peripheral Ring Road-1 (“PRR-1”) Clover Leaf project.

They contended that the Clover Leaf design had been shifted following a separate acquisition for the Bengaluru Metro Rail project, and that their lands were no longer required.

After their representations went unanswered, they filed an earlier writ petition; the Court directed the authorities to consider the representations in light of an engineering report.

The authorities subsequently stated that the request would be considered before a final notification was issued.

In the present petition, the petitioners relied on the revised project design and undertook to keep the lands intact for six months.

The BDA opposed the petition, arguing that the project design remained subject to change and that the engineering note did not constitute an approved decision to release the lands.

The acquisition process was governed by Sections 17(1) and 17(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, under which the preliminary notification proposes acquisition, with further statutory steps—including a final notification under Section 19—contemplated by the Act.

The Court observed that a preliminary notification is a proposal and ordinarily cannot, stricto sensu, be challenged in court; however, it considered the challenge in the circumstances of this case, where the authorities had shifted the project location and the petitioners’ lands remained under the shadow of acquisition.

The Court directed that any further action concerning the lands be taken in accordance with law.

The Court found that the respondents had not disputed that the petitioners’ lands had also been notified for the Metro project and that the Clover Leaf had been shifted to a different location.

It also relied on the tender and contract schedule, which indicated that the revised Clover Leaf design was located away from the petitioners’ lands.

Although the BDA argued that the design might change again, the Court considered that concern addressed by the petitioners’ undertaking to keep the lands intact for six months.

It therefore balanced the petitioners’ interest in avoiding an indefinite acquisition shadow against the possibility that the lands might still be required.

The 18 April 2022 preliminary notification was kept in abeyance insofar as it related to the petitioners’ lands, and the petitioners were directed not to undertake development on those lands for six months.

Within that period, the BDA and the other relevant respondents were to decide whether the lands were required for the PRR-1 Clover Leaf and, if so, proceed in accordance with law.

If no decision was made within six months, the notification was to stand quashed insofar as it concerned those lands, and the relevant revenue entries were to be corrected accordingly.