The Karnataka High Court has annulled the acquisition of over 1,938 acres for the Suryanagar 4th phase housing project, citing the irreversible ecological impact it would have on local wildlife, including elephants. This decision was rendered in the case of Puttarajamma v State of Karnataka by a division bench comprising Justices DK Singh and H Shanthi Bhushan.
The bench, upon reviewing appeals filed by landowners against the acquisition of their agricultural land for the Suryanagar project, concluded that the initiative, although aimed at providing affordable housing, would severely disrupt the natural habitat of elephants by affecting the Karadikkal-Madeshwara Corridor.
Elephants’ Rights and Environmental Concerns
The judges emphasized that elephants, whose corridors are crucial for their existence, should not be displaced as if they are devoid of rights. Justice DK Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan stressed the importance of considering environmental and socio-ecological factors in such developments, which were allegedly overlooked by the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB).
The original proposal involved acquiring 2,220 acres, but after objections, the state reduced it to 1,938 acres and 13 guntas. The acquisition spanned across several villages in Anekal taluk, raising significant environmental concerns due to its proximity to Bannerghatta National Park.
Legal Proceedings and Judgment
The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority had previously granted clearance to the project in 2023, a decision contested by landowners. They argued that the acquisition threatened their livelihoods and endangered the environment. Initially, a single-judge panel partially upheld these concerns, allowing agricultural land acquisition only if KHB secured the necessary Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) clearances, while quashing acquisition for non-agricultural land.
Both the landowners and the KHB appealed this decision. On August 29, the division bench scrutinized the environmental implications, particularly considering a Central Empowered Committee (CEC) report highlighting the eco-sensitive nature of the area around Bannerghatta National Park.
The court asserted that development must balance ecological preservation, as housing alone does not suffice for human existence. It pointed out that the project, located within the Bannerghatta National Park Eco-Sensitive Zone, posed severe ecological and environmental risks.
Conclusion
The court ultimately quashed the entire land acquisition process, siding with the landowners, and dismissed the appeals from the Karnataka Housing Board. Senior advocates, including Udaya Holla, DR Ravi Shankar, and others, represented the appellants, while the respondents were represented by Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath and Advocate General K Shashi Kiran Shetty, among others.
