Bengaluru: In a major setback to the state govt and the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB), the high court has quashed the acquisition of 1,938 acres and 13 guntas for the Suryanagar 4th Phase Layout in Anekal.The court cited environmental concerns, the project’s proximity to Bannerghatta National Park and its Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ), and the absence of mandatory clearances.A division bench comprising Justices DK Singh and H Shanthi Bhushan observed that the proposed housing project falls within the 268.9-sq-km Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around Bannerghatta National Park. The court noted that the proposal to reduce the ESZ to 168.8 sqkm is still pending before the Supreme Court.TOI had highlighted the issue in its Jan 8 report, “Bannerghatta ESZ revival casts shadow on development projects.”In its Aug 29 judgment, the high court bench observed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) itself, in its report, has raised serious concerns over undertaking a housing project of such magnitude. As the report is yet to be accepted or rejected by the Supreme Court, proceeding with the project would be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the statutory guidelines issued by the MoEFCC and public interest, the court said. It observed that the effectiveness of the ESZ, particularly its role in conservation and mitigating human-wildlife conflict, had not been adequately considered before undertaking such a project.The court noted that the project would seriously affect the Karadikkal-Madeshwara wildlife corridor, with the Karnataka forest department having already flagged the likelihood of increased human-wildlife conflict. “Ignoring all such concerns, the housing project has been undertaken,” the bench said.‘Ecology and environment are important’Emphasising that development cannot come at the cost of ecological conservation, the court said, “Housing is not the only requirement for human existence. Ecology, wildlife, forest, water streams etc., all are equally important for human existence.” “We are, therefore, of the view that since the project in question itself falls within the Bannerghatta National Park Eco-Sensitive Zone of 268.9 sqkm., the whole project is misconceived and would have irreversible ecological, environmental and wildlife related consequences. Therefore, the entire land acquisition proceedings are nothing but an exercise without undertaking the relevant considerations such as, scientific study of environment impact assessment, socio-ecological factors etc., as flagged by the Central Empowered Committee,” the bench observed.Acquisition challengedThe preliminary notification for acquisition of 2,220 acres and two guntas was issued on Oct 19, 2013. Three final notifications were issued on March 12, 2015, covering 1,938 acres and 13 guntas in Indlavadi, Bagganadoddi, Kadujakkanahalli, Konasandra and Bommandhahalli villages of Jigani and Kasaba Hobli in Anekal taluk.Landowners challenged the notifications. On Jan 13, 2025, a single judge allowed acquisition of agricultural lands subject to the respondents obtaining necessary clearances from the ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), while quashing acquisition of converted lands except for roads under the Comprehensive Development Plan. Both the landowners and KHB challenged the order through separate writ appeals.‘Critical ecological linkages’The division bench highlighted the importance of elephant corridors, calling them “critical ecological linkages” essential for the long-term conservation of elephants and their ecosystems.“Such corridors provide the necessary right of passage between fragmented habitats, facilitate seasonal and long-range movement, enable genetic exchange and reduce ecological and demographic consequences of habitat isolation,” it observed.The bench held that public purpose cannot override environmental conservation. While the Suryanagar project seeks to provide affordable housing, the court said it would come at the cost of wildlife habitat.“It is a settled and enduring sentiment that ‘there is no place like home.’ Yet… whether the same fundamental principle of a secure and undisturbed home is to be denied to wildlife,” it observed.The court allowed the landowners’ appeals, quashed the acquisition proceedings and set aside the January 13, 2025, single-judge order. KHB’s appeals were dismissed.
