Karnataka HC quashes Suryanagar 4th Stage land acquisition over ecological risks to Bannerghatta’s elephant corridors

The State of Karnataka initiated acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for formation of the “Suryanagar 4th Phase” residential layout by the Karnataka Housing Board (“KHB”) in villages including Konasandra, Bommandahalli, Kadujakkanahalli, Indlawadi and Bagganadoddi, Anekal Taluk.

Preliminary notifications were issued on 19 October 2013 for approximately 2,220 acres, followed by objections under Section 5A and final declarations under Section 6(1) dated 12 March 2015, published in the Official Gazette on 2 April 2015.

During the proceedings, environmental concerns arose because the lands were situated in or near the Eco-Sensitive Zone (“ESZ”) of Bannerghatta National Park, including areas associated with elephant movement corridors.

KHB obtained environmental clearance from SEIAA-Karnataka in 2023 and a modified clearance in 2026, but did not obtain prior clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (“NBWL”).

By order dated 13 January 2025, the learned Single Judge permitted acquisition of agricultural lands subject to obtaining necessary clearances from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (“MoEFCC”), while quashing acquisition of converted lands, except for road formation.

Both the landowners and KHB appealed.

During the appeals, the Central Empowered Committee (“CEC”) submitted a report dated 5 January 2026 recommending reconsideration of the 2020 ESZ notification, restoration of the wider ESZ proposed in 2016, and protection of elephant corridors.

The MoEFCC informed the Court that the CEC recommendations were still under examination and that no final decision had been taken.

Whether the acquisition proceedings complied with the procedural and limitation requirements of Sections 4(1), 5A and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly whether the Section 6 declaration was issued within one year of the publication of the preliminary notification.

Whether the acquisition and proposed housing project in the Bannerghatta National Park ESZ violated the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the applicable ESZ notifications and wildlife-clearance requirements, and was contrary to the CEC’s recommendations and public interest.

The Court applied Sections 4(1), 5A and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, holding that the limitation for issuing a Section 6 declaration begins from the last date of publication of the Section 4 notification, including publication of its substance in the locality.

It relied on Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan, Eugenio Misquita v. State of Goa, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Makrand Singh, State of Haryana v. Raghubir Dayal, and Karnataka Housing Board v. State of Karnataka.

The Court also applied the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the ESZ notifications dated 15 June 2016 and 11 March 2020, the MoEFCC’s wildlife-clearance guidelines dated 19 December 2012, and the Supreme Court’s directions concerning activities within the vicinity of protected areas.

It relied on Hospitality Association of Mudumalai v. In Defence of Environment & Animals, which recognises elephant corridors as essential ecological linkages requiring protection from habitat fragmentation and development.

The Court further applied the precautionary and public-interest principles that development and housing projects cannot override environmental conservation, ecological integrity and wildlife protection.

On the acquisition issue, the Court held that the relevant date for calculating the one-year period under the first proviso to Section 6(1) was 14 March 2014, when the substance of the preliminary notification was published in the village, and not 19 October 2013 or 28 November 2013, when the notification was published in the Gazette and newspaper.

Since the final declaration was made on 12 March 2015, it was within one year and was not invalid on limitation grounds.

The Court also found no sufficient basis to invalidate the acquisition merely because there had been a time gap between newspaper publication and local publication, relying on the principle that such delay does not by itself vitiate the notification.

On the environmental issue, however, the Court found that the project was of substantial magnitude and immediately abutted or affected the Bannerghatta ecological landscape and elephant corridors.

The CEC had identified the risk of irreversible alteration of land, absence of adequate scientific and cumulative-impact assessment, and increased human–wildlife conflict.

The State’s own pleadings and the Forest Department’s affidavit indicated that the lands fell within the relevant ESZ and that prior NBWL clearance was mandatory, but KHB had obtained only a wildlife mitigation plan and had not secured the required prior clearance.

The Court further held that the reduced 2020 ESZ notification remained under reconsideration and that the CEC’s recommendation to restore the wider ESZ could not be ignored while permitting the project.

Applying the principle that no housing or development objective can supersede ecological conservation, the Court concluded that proceeding with the acquisition without resolving the environmental and wildlife-protection issues was contrary to law and public interest.

It answered the environmental issue in favour of the landowners, holding that the proposed Suryanagar 4th Phase project raised unresolved and serious ecological concerns, lacked the requisite prior wildlife clearance, and threatened the Bannerghatta ESZ and elephant corridors.

Accordingly, the landowners’ appeals were allowed, the learned Single Judge’s order dated 13 January 2025 was set aside, and the entire land-acquisition proceedings were quashed.

The appeals filed by KHB were dismissed, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of as having become infructuous.