Farmers have been protesting against the Greater Bengaluru Integrated Township project.
| Photo Credit: File photo
The stage has been set for a battle between the farmers and the State government over the contentious Bidadi Integrated Township Project, with 14 small farmers knocking on the doors of the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (August 4), challenging the legality of acquisition of their agricultural lands, situated at Vaderahalli village.
State’s undertaking
In response to the petition, the State government gave an undertaking to the court that the 14 petitioners would not be dispossessed from their lands till the awards are passed under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Justice R. Nataraj, before whom the petition filed by one Girijamma and 13 others came up for hearing, adjourned further hearing till August 25 while recording the undertaking given by the State Advocate General K. Shashi Kiran Shetty that possession of the petitioners’ lands would not be taken till passing of the award.
No ‘public purpose’
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Prakash M.H argued that the project lacks genuine “public purpose” for the acquisition of fertile agricultural lands while pointing out that the State government is resurrecting the “failed” project, conceived two decades ago, with a “smarter name” to camouflage its true intent, which is to serve the commercial interests at the expense of thousands of farmers.
The fact that the project lacks a clear, finalised scheme and is being implemented on an “experimental basis” even after 20 years of its inception is evidence that it is not a well-considered public initiative but an “illusory vision” designed to dispossess farmers of their land for private or political gain, it has been claimed in the petition.
Resorted to subterfuge
It has been alleged in the petition that the State government, knowing well that it would be difficult to comply with the rigorous requirements of the 2013 land acquisition law, including the mandatory Social Impact Assessment (SIA), need for consent from landowners for certain types of projects, and rehabilitation measures, has resorted to a subterfuge.
To overcome SIA, the petitioners alleged that the government first declared these rural areas as “Local Planning Area” under the Town and Country Planning Act and then upgraded it to an “Urban Area” under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (KUDA) Act, solely to bring the acquisition under the KUDA Act.
Narrating how the project evolved since 2006, when the government first conceived the integrated township on an “experimental basis”, the petitioners pointed out that crucial shift in strategy occurred during 2015-16, when Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA) decided to notify it as the “Greater Bangalore Bidadi Smart City Planning Area”.
The government’s ultimate motive was to bring this predominantly rural and agricultural habitat under the purview of an urban legal framework, and finally to allow the authorities to invoke the provisions of a different land acquisition law instead of the 2013 land acquisition law to avoid SIA, it has been claimed in the petition.
This suspicion of a subterfuge, it has been claimed in the petition, is validated with the action of 2023, when the government issued a notification to upgrade the existing planning authority into the “Greater Bangalore Development Authority” (GBDA) under the KUDA Act, 1987, a crucial step to facilitate the acquisition under the KUDA Act rather than the 2013 land acquisition law by reclassifying a cluster of rural-agricultural areas as urban areas.
Published – August 04, 2026 10:27 pm IST
