Karnataka
,
Bengaluru
,
Bengaluru Urban
Published : 12 July, 2014   |   Last updated - 24 Jun, 2024
BBMP Receives Clearance to Build Steel Flyover at Shivananda Circle in Bengaluru
Reported by
Stella James
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Updated by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
People Affected
2017
Year started
1
Land area affected
Households affected
People Affected
2017
Year started
1
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Roads
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban
Ended
1
Summary

The construction of an ambitious steel flyover at Shivananda Circle in Bengaluru had been facing repeated delays since 2016 on account of opposition from residents. The project, seeking to ease traffic congestion in the city, was initially commissioned at an estimated cost of INR 14.48 crore, which quickly escalated to INR 22.89 crore when the work order was granted in October 2017. In the same year, local residents filed a writ petition in the Karnataka high court seeking a stay on the project. Anticipating that once constructed, it would worsen the traffic congestion in the city, the residents claimed the proposed flyover to be an unnecessary and counterproductive addition to the city's existing infrastructure. Their claim was further substantiated by notable scientists and researchers, including Professor M.N. Sreehari, advisor to the state government for traffic, transport and infrastructure, who referred to the project as "technically unsound, unviable". Additionally, R.K. Jaigopal, member of Indian Roads Congress, confirmed that the proposed project would create additional traffic hurdles instead of solving them. In 2018, the court ordered for the project to be revised in lieu of the objections and IRC guidelines. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) ultimately received a clearance to execute the project on April 17, 2020, at a revised cost of INR 39 crore. As per a report published on June 12, 2021, BBMP Chief Commissioner Gaurav Gupta informed that the pending issues at the construction site had been resolved and that the project was on track for completion by 2021.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for better access to common land/resources

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Common

Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

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

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

39.5

Type of investment:

Revised Investment

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

Yes

When did it end?

June 2021

Why did the conflict end?

Author
Reported by
Stella James

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 better access to common land/resources

BBMP Receives Clearance to Build Steel Flyover at Shivananda Circle in Bengaluru

Reported by

Stella James

Legal Review by

Edited by

Updated by

Updated by

Published on

August 8, 2017

May 17, 2022

Edited on

August 8, 2017

Sector

Infrastructure

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Roads

Starting Year

2017

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

1

ha

Households Affected by Conflict

People Affected by Conflict

State

Karnataka

Sector

Infrastructure

People Affected by Conflict

Households Affected by Conflict

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

1

ha

Starting Year

2017

Location of Conflict

Bengaluru

Bengaluru Urban

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Roads

Land Conflict Summary

The construction of an ambitious steel flyover at Shivananda Circle in Bengaluru had been facing repeated delays since 2016 on account of opposition from residents. The project, seeking to ease traffic congestion in the city, was initially commissioned at an estimated cost of INR 14.48 crore, which quickly escalated to INR 22.89 crore when the work order was granted in October 2017. In the same year, local residents filed a writ petition in the Karnataka high court seeking a stay on the project. Anticipating that once constructed, it would worsen the traffic congestion in the city, the residents claimed the proposed flyover to be an unnecessary and counterproductive addition to the city's existing infrastructure. Their claim was further substantiated by notable scientists and researchers, including Professor M.N. Sreehari, advisor to the state government for traffic, transport and infrastructure, who referred to the project as "technically unsound, unviable". Additionally, R.K. Jaigopal, member of Indian Roads Congress, confirmed that the proposed project would create additional traffic hurdles instead of solving them. In 2018, the court ordered for the project to be revised in lieu of the objections and IRC guidelines. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) ultimately received a clearance to execute the project on April 17, 2020, at a revised cost of INR 39 crore. As per a report published on June 12, 2021, BBMP Chief Commissioner Gaurav Gupta informed that the pending issues at the construction site had been resolved and that the project was on track for completion by 2021.

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for better access to common land/resources

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Common

Type of Common Land

Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

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

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

39.5

Type of investment:

Revised Investment

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

Yes

When did it end?

June 2021

Why did the conflict end?

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Other

Legislations/Policies Involved

  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

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

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

No items found.

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

High Court of Karnataka

Case Number

I.A. No. 4/2017 in Writ Petition No. 47168/2017 (GM-RES) PIL

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

No items found.

Reported Details of the Violation:

Date of Violation

Location of Violation

Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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:

Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

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

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

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

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

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

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

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

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