Karnataka
Yeshwanthapura, Hessarghatta Hobli, Somashettihalli; Lakshmipura, Ganigarahalli, Byalakere, Kalathammanahalli, Guniagrahara, Kempapura, Mediagrahara, Avalahalli, Vaderahalli, Ramagondanahalli, Kempanahalli, Veerasagara, Doddabettahalli, Harohalli, Shyamarajapura, Jarakabande Kaval
,
Yelahanka Hobli
,
Bengaluru Urban
Published : 12 July, 2014   |   Last updated - 24 Jun, 2024
Bangalore Development Authority razes crops of farmers for a real-estate project despite protests
Reported by
Bhanu Shridharan
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Updated by
Anupa Kujur
1850
Households affected
People Affected
2008
Year started
1399
Land area affected
1850
Households affected
People Affected
2008
Year started
1399
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Township/Real Estate
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban and Rural
Ended
1
Summary

In February 2023, the Bangalore Development Authority destroyed crops using a bulldozer across 17 villages for a real estate project, despite protests from the farmers who farmed those lands.

This real estate project is called Shivaram Karanth Layout – it has been at the heart of a conflict that has persisted for 15 years. In 2008, the Bangalore Development Authority, the planning agency for Bengaluru city, devised a new residential layout, north of the city. Shivaram Karanth Layout was to be a planned residential project built across 3,546 acres. In 2008, BDA issued a notification for the acquisition of 3,546 acres from 17 villages in north Bengaluru under the BDA Act, 1976.

The notification was met with widespread opposition primarily because the compensation was considered inadequate by the affected land owners. The agency received at least 12,000 objections against the project.

Between 2008 and 2014, state governments led by both BJP and Congress asked the BDA to drop nearly 400 acres of land, allegedly belonging to influential persons, from their acquisition plans.

Widespread protests and multiple legal petitions eventually led the Karnataka High Court to cancel the 2008 notification, halting the project in 2015. The BDA appealed to the Supreme Court and in 2018, a two person SC bench restored the original 2008 notification. The SC also dismissed petitions objecting to the BDA’s compensation package made as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAC).

Land losers wanted compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act of 2013 or LARR Act. As it would allow them to get compensation and rehabilitation after being displaced, explained Nidhi Hanji, a lawyer with the Environment Support Group (ESG), an NGO that was assisting affected people in the region. Under LARR, landless communities could also be compensated for loss of common lands for grazing and landowners for crop loss. However, the SC bench ruled that that LAC was written into the BDA Act and therefore only that act could apply for BDA related land acquisition.

Farmers losing their lands continued to protest both the acquisition itself and the compensation package under the LAC. Vasanth, an affected farmer from Veerasagara village set to lose about 4 acres, said that the protestors had been writing to BDA, the then Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai of the BJP led government, the local MLA from BJP, SR Vishwanath who is also the chairman of the BDA, and the current chief minister Siddharamaiah heading the recently formed Congress government in May 2023.

Following this ruling, BDA has slowly begun the process of clearing notified lands and acquiring them. In December 2022, the agency conducted an inauguration ceremony of the layout and in February 2023, they began razing crop fields and plantations in the area. Ramesh, a member of the Dalit Sangharsh Samiti (DSS), Mavalipura, said that the BDA razed food crops, fodder and fruit plantations that were ready to be harvested. “Essentially, our entire livelihood for the year was destroyed by them,” he said.

Nidhi, from ESG, pointed out that the agency had indulged in several procedural violations. BDA had not given the farmers enough notice about the process of eviction and demolition. The agency had also not yet paid farmers the compensation that was due to them as per the SC ruling. “You have to first pay compensation and then take away their lands", she pointed out.

Protests at the time also led to arrest of nine including Vasanth and Ramesh M. They were given bail under the condition that they would not protest for a year, said Ramesh, from DSS. Currently, farmers have lost most of their crops and income for the year. Around 3000 cattle in the area are without fodder as well, Vasanth explained. “We asked BDA and the state government to support us with fodder at least, but there has been no response,” he said.

The affected farmers have requested CM Bommai of the previous government to pass an ordinance changing BDA act to include the LARR act. Vasanth said they intend to request the same from the current government. They, along with ESG, have also filed a petition at the NGT challenging the environmental clearance given to the BDA for the layout.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for more compensation than promised

Demand for promised compensation

Opposition against environmental degradation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Urban and Rural

Type of Land

Common and Private

Non-Forest (Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

Arrest

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

9

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Out on bail

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

No

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Indian Penal Code

143, 353, 504, 506

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

No

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Yes

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Bail was set at INR 50000 per accused. Conditions include presenting themselves at the start and end of each month to the nearest police station. And not participating in any protest for one year.

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Same as primary source

Status of Project

Project underway despite protests

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Yes

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Agricultural land, Grazing, Residential area, Water bodies

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/sc-revives-shivaram-karanth-layout-project-bda-to-acquire-land/articleshow/65284408.cms

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Author
Reported by
Bhanu Shridharan

Karnataka

Kumar Sambhav is a social entrepreneur and award-winning journalist, leading innovative research in accountability investigations. He is the founder of Land Conflict Watch and is currently working as India Research Lead with Princeton University’s Digital Witness Lab.

Read More

Latest updates
Rajasthan
Rajasthan

UIT Bikaner's Jorbeer Housing Project on Stalls Following Rajasthan High Court Order

Rajasthan
Rajasthan

Jaipur Development Authority Acquires Land for Township Project, Ending Conflict

Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh

Farmers land acquired under Mansarovar Housing Scheme in Lucknow

Maharashtra
Maharashtra

Citizens unite against cycle track around Powai, Vihar Lakes in Mumbai

Jharkhand
Jharkhand

Families displaced by Mandal Dam in Jharkhand opppose project resumption

Jharkhand
Jharkhand

Jharkhand approves Adani's thermal plant, farmers allege violation of LARR Act

Gujarat
Gujarat

Pastoral Community in Gujarat's Banni Grasslands Demands Titles Recognising Community Forest Rights

Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh

Builder Encroaches Upon Farmers Land in Gosaiganj Lucknow, 150 Allottees in Lurch

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for more compensation than promised

Demand for promised compensation

Opposition against environmental degradation

Bangalore Development Authority razes crops of farmers for a real-estate project despite protests

Reported by

Bhanu Shridharan

Legal Review by

Priyansha Chouhan, Anmol Gupta

Edited by

Radhika Chatterjee

Updated by

Updated by

Published on

July 20, 2023

July 31, 2023

Edited on

July 20, 2023

Sector

Infrastructure

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Township/Real Estate

Starting Year

2008

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

1399

ha

Households Affected by Conflict

1850

People Affected by Conflict

State

Karnataka

Sector

Infrastructure

People Affected by Conflict

Households Affected by Conflict

1850

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

1399

ha

Starting Year

2008

Location of Conflict

Yelahanka Hobli

Yeshwanthapura, Hessarghatta Hobli, Somashettihalli; Lakshmipura, Ganigarahalli, Byalakere, Kalathammanahalli, Guniagrahara, Kempapura, Mediagrahara, Avalahalli, Vaderahalli, Ramagondanahalli, Kempanahalli, Veerasagara, Doddabettahalli, Harohalli, Shyamarajapura, Jarakabande Kaval

Bengaluru Urban

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Township/Real Estate

Land Conflict Summary

In February 2023, the Bangalore Development Authority destroyed crops using a bulldozer across 17 villages for a real estate project, despite protests from the farmers who farmed those lands.

This real estate project is called Shivaram Karanth Layout – it has been at the heart of a conflict that has persisted for 15 years. In 2008, the Bangalore Development Authority, the planning agency for Bengaluru city, devised a new residential layout, north of the city. Shivaram Karanth Layout was to be a planned residential project built across 3,546 acres. In 2008, BDA issued a notification for the acquisition of 3,546 acres from 17 villages in north Bengaluru under the BDA Act, 1976.

The notification was met with widespread opposition primarily because the compensation was considered inadequate by the affected land owners. The agency received at least 12,000 objections against the project.

Between 2008 and 2014, state governments led by both BJP and Congress asked the BDA to drop nearly 400 acres of land, allegedly belonging to influential persons, from their acquisition plans.

Widespread protests and multiple legal petitions eventually led the Karnataka High Court to cancel the 2008 notification, halting the project in 2015. The BDA appealed to the Supreme Court and in 2018, a two person SC bench restored the original 2008 notification. The SC also dismissed petitions objecting to the BDA’s compensation package made as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAC).

Land losers wanted compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act of 2013 or LARR Act. As it would allow them to get compensation and rehabilitation after being displaced, explained Nidhi Hanji, a lawyer with the Environment Support Group (ESG), an NGO that was assisting affected people in the region. Under LARR, landless communities could also be compensated for loss of common lands for grazing and landowners for crop loss. However, the SC bench ruled that that LAC was written into the BDA Act and therefore only that act could apply for BDA related land acquisition.

Farmers losing their lands continued to protest both the acquisition itself and the compensation package under the LAC. Vasanth, an affected farmer from Veerasagara village set to lose about 4 acres, said that the protestors had been writing to BDA, the then Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai of the BJP led government, the local MLA from BJP, SR Vishwanath who is also the chairman of the BDA, and the current chief minister Siddharamaiah heading the recently formed Congress government in May 2023.

Following this ruling, BDA has slowly begun the process of clearing notified lands and acquiring them. In December 2022, the agency conducted an inauguration ceremony of the layout and in February 2023, they began razing crop fields and plantations in the area. Ramesh, a member of the Dalit Sangharsh Samiti (DSS), Mavalipura, said that the BDA razed food crops, fodder and fruit plantations that were ready to be harvested. “Essentially, our entire livelihood for the year was destroyed by them,” he said.

Nidhi, from ESG, pointed out that the agency had indulged in several procedural violations. BDA had not given the farmers enough notice about the process of eviction and demolition. The agency had also not yet paid farmers the compensation that was due to them as per the SC ruling. “You have to first pay compensation and then take away their lands", she pointed out.

Protests at the time also led to arrest of nine including Vasanth and Ramesh M. They were given bail under the condition that they would not protest for a year, said Ramesh, from DSS. Currently, farmers have lost most of their crops and income for the year. Around 3000 cattle in the area are without fodder as well, Vasanth explained. “We asked BDA and the state government to support us with fodder at least, but there has been no response,” he said.

The affected farmers have requested CM Bommai of the previous government to pass an ordinance changing BDA act to include the LARR act. Vasanth said they intend to request the same from the current government. They, along with ESG, have also filed a petition at the NGT challenging the environmental clearance given to the BDA for the layout.

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for more compensation than promised

Demand for promised compensation

Opposition against environmental degradation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Urban and Rural

Type of Land

Common and Private

Type of Common Land

Non-Forest (Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

Arrest

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

9

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Out on bail

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

No

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

No

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Indian Penal Code

143, 353, 504, 506

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

No

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Yes

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Bail was set at INR 50000 per accused. Conditions include presenting themselves at the start and end of each month to the nearest police station. And not participating in any protest for one year.

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Same as primary source

Status of Project

Project underway despite protests

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Yes

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Agricultural land, Grazing, Residential area, Water bodies

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/sc-revives-shivaram-karanth-layout-project-bda-to-acquire-land/articleshow/65284408.cms

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Legislations/Policies Involved

Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976
Section 14 [The Development Authority has the power to acquire land in the region to carry out development according to the scheme] Section 27 [Any scheme by the Development Authority shall lapse if it is not executed within a period of five years from the date of the publication. If the scheme has not been executed, provisions of Section 36 will become inoperative] Section 36 [Land acquisition carried out by the Development Authority will be governed by the provisions of the 1894 Land Acquisition Act]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Section 24(2) [Where an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but physical possession of land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid, the proceedings under the old Act will deem to have lapsed]
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006
Section 4 [Whenever land in any locality is likely needed for public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the official gazette and two local daily newspapers]; Section 6 [A declaration has to be made by the appropriate government authority stating that a particular land is needed for public purpose or for a company]; Section 9 [The District Collector shall issue a public notice stating that the government intends to take possession of the land and that all claims of compensation may be made to him/her]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 4 [Whenever land in any locality is likely needed for public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the official gazette and two local daily newspapers]; Section 6 [A declaration has to be made by the appropriate government authority stating that a particular land is needed for public purpose or for a company]; Section 9 [The District Collector shall issue a public notice stating that the government intends to take possession of the land and that all claims of compensation may be made to him/her]
  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  6. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  7. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

Yes

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

Around 15,000 objections were filed with the BDA opposing the project.

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

The BDA still decided to go ahead with the project.

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

Non-consultation with stakeholders

Controversial land acquisition by the government

Violation of environmental laws

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Pending

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

No

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

National Green Tribunal, Supreme Court (disposed)

Case Number

Civil Appeal no. 7661­7663/2018;

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

In the order dated August 3, 2018, the Supreme Court held the scheme and layout valid. An inquiry was also directed against the delinquent officers of the BDA and State Government for excluding selective portions of the land from the scheme. In the order dated January 20, 2021, the Supreme Court held that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would apply to the proceedings but the time frame for publishing the final notification would not be regulated by the 1894 Act. Instead, the time line for the notification would be governed by the Bangalore Development Authority Act. Further, the Court held that provisions of the 2013 Act would not be applicable to acquisitions under the BDA Act. An appeal was filed in the National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone) against the environmental clearance granted to the Bangalore Development Authority. The case is presently ongoing.

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

Arrest/detention/imprisonment

Other harassment

Financial harassment

Reported Details of the Violation:

On February 24, the BDA arrived at villages designated to be part of the Shivaram Karanth Layout. They began clearing agricultural fields, grazing lands and orchards in order to take physical possession and begin work. Residents objected to the BDA officials' actions. The BDA then filed an FIR against some of the residents alleging intimidation and obstruction of government duty. The police arrested them, charged them under five sections including unlawful assembly, wrongful restraint and assault on government officer obstructing duty. They received bail on the 28th of February; one of the bail conditions was that they would refrain from any protest for one year. Later farmers were forced to sign undertakings and bonds of at least 1lakh, to deter them from protesting or entering their land, with the threat of being charged with nonbailable cases in case of default.

Date of Violation

February 23, 2023

Location of Violation

Survey no 6, Shamarajapura village, Yelahanka Hobli

Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Bangalore Development Authority

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Dalit Sangarsh Samithi, Mavallipura

Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

Arrest

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

9

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Out on bail

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

No

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Indian Penal Code

143, 353, 504, 506

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

No

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Yes

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Bail was set at INR 50000 per accused. Conditions include presenting themselves at the start and end of each month to the nearest police station. And not participating in any protest for one year.

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Resources

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Images

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Video

Other Land Conflicts in Karnataka

cross
    Not a member yet?
    Sign up now
    Conflicts Map
    Conflict Database
    About Us