Smt Chandrika vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer-I
2026 Latest Caselaw 127 Kant

40. The road layout is more or less a grid pattern. Each

residential pocket is to be developed as a self contained

neighbourhood with facilities like School, Playground, Park,

Dispensary, convenient shopping etc. The environmentally

friendly nature of the township is emphasized by

developing the township for non motorised transport

system, encompassing the existing settlements within the

overall structure of the township and provision of a green

buffer all along the site boundary besides the provision of

community parks and trees lining the major roads of the

township.

41. Last but not the least the link to the proposed

Expressway which will be provided through an interchange on

the expressway.

42. Township No. 3 is not described in the judgment

43. Insofar as Township No.4 is concerned it is noted that

it is about 36 and 37 kms West of Bangalore along the

proposed Expressway. The site has an area of about 1,660

acres and is meant for the industrial land use. It is

intended to accommodate different types of plots for the

various industries. A green buffer is maintained all round

the township and the environmental considerations shall

be well looked after. The site has an approach from the

Expressway. The necessary provision has also been

maintained for the public and semi-public and the green

areas. The town shall be designed on the lines of a modern

Industrial township with all necessary trapping.

44. In respect of the Township No. 5, which is north of

township No.4, it is noted that township is located near the

existing Bangalore Mysore State Highway 17 and also near

the existing Railway line. 40. The site of this township in

on the north of the existing Village of Archahakra Halli,

which is along the State Highway 17 from where an

existing roadway leads to the interlands. This road passes

through the entire length of the proposed township. This

proposed township has a mix of cultural and residential

land use and it occupies an area of about 2700 acres. This

Town shall have a Medical Centre with full fledged Hospital

with centres for the study of various types of Medical

systems like Allopathy, Ayurveda etc. It will also have a

centre for religious studies with sub-centres for all world

religion and will accommodate special centre for the Vedic

studies. Housing also forms the major component of this

township.

45. Township No. 6 is not described in the judgment.

46. But in respect of Township No.7, it is noted that this

would be near the vicinity of Mysore City, about 3 kms on

its outskirts and about 1 km on the north of Kaveri River.

It occupies an area of 4,010 acres. The township is

designed for Ecotourism and all facilities have to be

provided to meet this target.

47. This is the township of contrasts. It will have an

Amusement Park, Golf Course and Hotels with some

residential neighbourhoods. A town centre with

commercial,. public buildings and other necessary

infrastructure facilities are provided.

48. All these townships together provide for necessary

infrastructure support required in this region for

perspective requirements.

49. The townships will be developed in line with modern

town planning practices. Special consideration should be

shown while detailing open spaces parks and greens.

Special attention is to be given to the Agricultural Zone

and the Agricultural University where uses like

Agricultural, Horticulture Farming, Chilling Centers,

FarmHouses and accessory buildings will be planned.

50. Since the detailed layout and architectural control &

drafting zoning applicable norms are within the scope of

the PTR, this is not attempted in the report, and it was

said that this being an exclusive work, which would be

handled separately. However, certain points which have

links with land use planning and which need to be

considered in development planning are listed below :

1. Road hierarchy has to be planned to avoid main traffic in a sub-city going through residential areas.

2. Wind Rose is to be kept in view while treating high rise buildings vs. low rise buildings.

3. Continuous green may be attempted to allow minimum public use of motorised transport - encourage cycle or pedestrian movement.

4. All high rise buildings to be on wide roads only.

5. Drainage and greens to be integrated.

6. Low rise buildings to be attempted to harmonize with environment.

7. Energy savings should be an important criterion while detailing architectural plans.

8. Local zoning to ensure a low noise environment for schools, hospitals, and residences."

(emphasis supplied)

51. Thus this PTR was deliberated and eventually

translated into a formal decision of the State with some

modifications and changes to the recommendations

made therein. Finally, the Framework Agreement (FWA)

dated 03.04.1997 was executed between the State

Government and Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise.

However, the Project Technical Report was prepared on

August 1995, with the objective of developing seven satellite

townships along the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor

to de-congest the City with better civic and other amenities

and better opportunities for business, professionals and other

amusements etc.

52. This FWA unambiguously refers to the PTR and the

necessity to implement the project as finally approved by the

Government in the larger public interest. The relevant recitals

of the FWA have been extracted in the said judgment:-

"W I T N E S S E T H

WHEREAS, Bangalore and Mysore are the fastest developing cities in the State of Karnataka and are leading centres for industry, trade and commerce, simultaneously attracting tourists from all over the world;

WHEREAS, the traffic intensity between Bangalore and Mysore has been very high and will continue to increase with further growth of industry, trade, commerce and tourism in such cities and in the State of Karnataka;

WHEREAS,        in   order       to    ensure    smooth     and
accident    free     traffic     between      Bangalore     and

Mysore, an expressway between the two cities is proposed;

WHEREAS, in light of the everincreasing urbanisation problems and in an effort to achieve the orderly development of Bangalore as a major industrial commercial and residential city, GOK has proposed to promote an integrated infrastructure corridor situated between Bangalore and Mysore, Karnataka, consisting of

residential, industrial and commercial facilities such as among other things, self sustaining townships, expressways, utilities and amenities, including power plants, industrial plants, water treatment plants and other infrastructural developments, as more specifically described in the Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report, dated August 1995, as amended (collectively, the "Infrastructure Corridor");

WHEREAS, GOK has been consistently attempting to attract on agreeable terms a consortium to industrially and commercially develop the Infrastructure Corridor in accordance with the vision of GOK;

WHEREAS, the Kalyani Group, SAB Engineering and Construction Inc., and Vanasse Hangen Brust/in Inc. (collectively, the "Consortium") and GOK entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 20 February, 1995 relating to the further consideration of the industrial and commercial development of the Infrastructure Corridor by the Consortium (the "Memorandum of Understanding");

WHEREAS, GOK, upon review, assessment and consideration of the Infrastructure Corridor

Project Technical Report dated August - 1995 prepared by the Consortium, as amended by the Government Order (defined below) and the Annexure thereto (the "Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report") is satisfied that the interests of the State of Karnataka would be best served if the Infrastructure Corridor is industrially and commercially developed as contemplated by the Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report inasmuch as such development would promote industrial, commercial and economic growth in the State of Karnataka generally and in Bangalore and Mysore and the Infrastructure Corridor specifically create new job opportunities for the residents in and around the Infrastructure Corridor, promote tourism, decongest traffic in Bangalore and Mysore, ensure smooth and safer traffic between Bangalore and Mysore and provide a worldclass expressway between the two cities;

WHEREAS, GOK issued Order No. PWD 32 CSR 95 dated 20 November 1995 (the "Government Order") authorizing the development of the Infrastructure Corridor by the Consortium as contemplated by the Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report;

WHEREAS, GOK has consented to and acknowledged the exercise by the Company of the Consortium's rights under the Memorandum of Understanding and the Government Order pursuant to a Consent and Acknowledgement Agreement dated 9th September, 1996 among the GOK and the members of the Consortium;

WHEREAS,       the      Company     has          agreed     to
industrially   nd       commercially        develop        the

Infrastructure Corridor and finance, own and/or operate such developments in the manner contemplated by this Agreement;

WHEREAS, under the above recited premises, GOK has undertaken to extend to and provide the Company with the necessary governmental actions, cooperation and assistance and grant the Company rights required for the industrial and commercial development of the Infrastructure Corridor, including the services and businesses contemplated in Schedule 4, which GOK believes is in the best interests of the State of Karnataka and its citizens because, among other things, it will (i) promote industrial, commercial and economic growth in the Infrastructure Corridor, the cities of Bangalore and Mysore and the State of Karnataka generally, (ii) create new jobs, (iii) provide the

State of Karnataka a much needed world class expressway between Bangalore and Mysore, (iv) create a countermagnet to Bangalore city and

(v) help in promotion and development of worldclass tourism; and

WHEREAS, the Company will assign its rights under this Agreement to the various Project Companies, each of which will develop, construct and finance part of the Infrastructure Corridor Project in a manner to be determined by the Company in accordance with this Agreement;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration_of the mutual premises, covenants and promises herein contained, the Company and GOK do hereby agree as follows:"

(emphasis supplied)

THE STAGE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FWA:

53. As of today the population of Bengaluru would be

around 1.4 crores. This ambitious project and planning as

delineated in the PTR has remained only on paper, even WP No. 17839 OF 2010

after 30 years for various reasons including the large scale

corruption, the political and bureaucratic interferences,

alleged violations of commitments by both sides and it is

informed that out of 111 kilometres Bangalore Mysore

infrastructure road, only 1 kilometre has been constructed

by Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise. It has

constructed 47 kilometres peripheral roads from which it

collects toll tax to its profit. But the ambitious and the

project of such a public interest to decongest the city and

to develop new satellite township has remained only on

papers. Not even a single township has been developed

in last 35 years. The result is that, today it is difficult to

travel on the roads of Bangalore and mobility has come to

standstill. A few kilometre travelling consumes

considerable time, may be hours. This is a classic example

of the non-commitment to the public planning by the

people in power for various reasons, which may be large

scale corruption, bureaucratic trapping and the litigation.

We have been informed that at least 2,000 cases have

been filed by different people in respect of this corridor,

which would include the landowners and others. This

project instead of de-clogging and de-congesting the city

by developing seven townships on the Bangalore-Mysore

infrastructure road has clogged and congested the High

Court and other Courts. It has not been beneficial to the

public at large, but it may have been beneficial to the

advocates inasmuch as more than 2,000 cases got added

to this Court docket. More than six times the parties have

approached the Supreme Court also.

54. The beautiful planning in the PTR was made as noted

above with the underlying concern of the State to

address to the• increasing urbanization problem and to

assuage the hardship caused on that account to the

general public. The project as envisaged and finalized in

PTR was intended to achieve the objective of orderly

development of Bangalore as a major industrial,

commercial and residential city. The integrated

infrastructure corridor (the project was to consist of

residential, industrial and commercial facilities amongst

other things, self sustaining townships, expressways,

utilities and amenities including power plants,

industrial plants, water, sewage treatment plants and

other infrastructural developments.) The avowed object

was also to ensure smooth and accident free traffic

between Bangalore and Mysore; to create new job

opportunities for the residents in and around the

infrastructure corridor; Promote tourism; Decongest

traffic etc.

55. Though in PTR 7 townships were conceived, but in the

final decision as in the framework agreement (FWA) only 5

townships were approved as part of project being township

number 1, 2 4, 5 and 7. This was a conscious decision

taken by the State to have limited number of self-sustaining

townships in the entire belt, so as to fulfil the National

and State policy goals of population dispersion and to

ensure proper functionality in the region. The NICE and the

Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Limited, a subsidiary of

NICE which entered into tripartite agreement with the State

Government on 09.08.2002 jointly referred to as Project

proponents would be allowed to develop only five townships

at the demarcated locations, which would be self-sustaining

with sufficient infrastructure for ensuring a smooth and

extent-free traffic on Bangalore-Mysore Expressway

stretched to about 140 kilometres.

56. The Supreme Court in the case of BANGALORE

MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING

AUTHORITY VS NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR

ENTERPRISE LIMITED ([2021] 18 SCC 401) has specifically

held that the specifications in FWA read with the relevant

portion of PTR would have to be kept in mind. The

underlying objective of the project was of orderly

development of Bangalore City and to address the ever

increasing urbanisation problem. The Supreme Court also

noted in paragraph Nos.55 and 56 that the FWA

delineates the nature of contract and the scope of work

to be carried out by the project proponents as per the

terms and conditions specified therein.

57. The Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor is an

integrated project not only for construction and

management of express way, but also for creation of

townships at the demarcated locations as per the

specification and area ear-marked therefor. The

infrastructure corridor is an integrated concept as defined

in the FWA. And it collectively means the land, toll road,

the township, the power plants, the telecommunication

facilities, the water supply facility and the waste

management treatment facilities and other

developments and the acquisition, design, construction,

engineering, financing and implementation thereof as

referred to in the PTR. The township's are therefore, an

identified and well-defined component of the

infrastructure corridor project.

58. Townships as defined under the PTR is a well defined

component of the infrastructure corridor project as held by

the Supreme Court. In the aforesaid judgment of

Bangalore-Mysore Infra-Corridor Area Planning Authority

supra. The definition of township is as under:-

"Townships means the Townships described as Townships 1,2 4, 5 and 7 in the Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report which will be developed by the company and / the project companies for the industrial and commercial growth and other development of the infrastructure corridor, and the provision of roads, supply of water and electricity, street lighting, sewage, conservancy and such other conveniences and socio-economic infrastructure, inter alia comprising of Housing, Schools, Socio Economic Infrastructure, inter alia comprising of Housing Schools Hospitals, Shopping Complexes, Parks and open spaces as set forth in Schedule IV attached there too."

59. The Supreme Court in the said judgment in para 56

has said that from the definitions of the township as

extracted above, the only five townships (Each having

different purpose such as Corporate Center, Industrial

Center, Ecotourism Center, Heritage Center and

Commercial Center) have been envisaged in the

infrastructure corridor project. The locations of these five

townships have been identified in the PTR. Besides the

locations, the extent of area to be utilized for creation of

each township has also been specified in the PTR, which

applies proprio vigore to the expression townships in FWA.

The term "townships", no doubt includes housing, but a

standalone group housing scheme cannot be regarded as

township as such. A township would, however, comprise

of not only housing, but also schools, hospitals, shopping

complexes, parks and open spaces as noted in Schedule

IV. The Supreme Court after taking note of Schedule

IV and Schedule I which deals with the total land to be

used for the infrastructure corridor project, the vital

question of the extent of land to be used for different

activities such as toll road and township areas, township

wise held that the project proponents would be obliged

to construct the five townships at the demarcated

locations only and to the extent of land specified

therefore. Any other proposal of the project proponents

would be nothing short of deviation from FWA in

particular. It is not necessary to dilate on the essential

specification and components to constitute a township. It

would be sufficient to say that the project proponents

would be obliged to construct housing in the area

demarcated for townships and ensure that the other socio-

economic infrastructure components such as Schools,

Hospitals, Shopping Complexes, Parks and Open Spaces

etc, are also provided for within the townships. The

construction of essential components including housing, as

expressly provided in the FWA, must also comply with the

Municipal laws governing such constructions. The

Supreme Court noted the relevant clauses of FWA read

with PTR in the judgment and said that the basic

infrastructure for the townships would be substantially

completed within (i.e. Minimal reasonable facilities that

enable some people to be able to live in the townships)

within 12 years from the date of the toll road completion

notice. The township completion date in no event shall

be later than the date, which is 30 years from the date

of date of toll road completion notice as or should or

would have been delivered pursuant to the provisions of

para 6.2 and clause '2.3' of para 6.6.3.

60. The Supreme Court also answered the question

whether the stipulations and specifications in the FWA

regarding the scope of work and the application of both

parties stood modified or altered due to supplementary

agreements dated 02.10.1999 and 31.03.2000. The

Supreme Court has held that even on a fair reading of

these agreements, there exists no express clause therein,

which would alter the scope of work and the obligations

of both the parties regarding the setting up of five self-

sustaining townships only at the demarcated locations. The

supplementary agreements, however, deal with other

aspects other than the setting up of five townships at the

demarcated locations as per the specifications. It was

further held that the tripartite agreement dated

09.08.2002 between the State Command, NICE and NECE

also does not alter or modify the stipulations and

specifications for setting up of five self-sustaining

townships only at the demarcated locations. All the five

townships referred to in the PTR are indisputably far away

from the intersections. The proposal of the proposed

proponents for group housing scheme in Section A of

the project at Intersection 5/7 on the peripheral road

was found to be against the FWA and PTR. The Supreme

Court held that the project proponents would be obliged

to develop the project only in the manner provided for in

FWA. The right to develop the project bestowed on the

project proponents flows primarily from the FWA and the

supplementary Agreements in this regard. The Supreme

Court also held that the project proponents cannot and

ought not to have directly approached the planning

authority for grant of stated permission in reference to

the provisions in the KTCP Act or ODP / Master Plan. If the

proposal submitted by the project proponents was

compliant with the stipulation and specification given in

the FWA read with PTR, only then the project proponents

could justifiably approach the planning authority directly

for grant of permission as per their extent regulations and

Municipal laws applicable in that regard, to construct

buildings and structures for establishing a township. In

other words, A proposal/obligation for project proponent

should be a valid proposal/obligation to the planning

authority only if it was to be in strict compliance with the

land use specified in FWA read with the PTR. Thus, in case

of the deviation, it ought to be accompanied a formal prior

approval of the State. Or the empowered committee, as

the case may be, so that it can be processed further by

the planning authority. The Supreme Court has held that

the land acquired by the State from private landowners

is only for the implementation of the project. Therefore,

the use of the land should be strictly in conformity with the

FWA and the applicable stipulation in the PTR. It would

not be open to the project proponents to contend that

they could unilaterally develop the land allotted to them

by the State in the manner other than specified in FWA,

being bound by the contractual obligation flowing from

FWA.

61. The Supreme Court further held that the permission

granted by the State to the project proponents to

construct housing units at locations other than the five

townships to accommodate the land losers in connection

with the same project as per the policy of the State, the

stated housing complex could not spread over 42 acres

and 30 guntas of land so as to disrupt the holistic

development envisaged in the FWA/PTR. It was further

said that in any case that could be done only after

obtaining prior approval of the State in that regard. As

regards permission given to the private landowners, the

said permission was given by the planning authority as per

the applicable town planning regulations and in

particular the use is specified in the ODP of the Master

Plan. So far their lands did not form part of the project

and also because they are not bound by the stipulations

in FWA in particular unlike the project proponents.

62. Thus the Supreme Court, in categorical terms has

held that the five townships are to be developed, as per

the specification provided in FWA/PTR in the designated

locations only. No deviation is possible to come up in any

other township by the project proponents.

63. Having extensively noted the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Bangalore-Mysore Infra-Corridor Area

Planning Authority (Supra), now we would like to deal with

the merit of the present case.

THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE:

64. As per the petitioners, late Sarojamma was the

absolute owner of the property bearing old Survey

No.26/3, Survey No.170 measuring 3 acres and 23 1/2

guntas and old Survey No.26/4, Survey No.171 measuring

4 acres and 2 guntas in Komagatta Village, Kengeri Hobli,

Bangalore South Taluk.

65. The said late Sarojamma bequeathed the said

properties to the petitioner vide Will dated 15.04.1993.

Sarojamma died on 27.06.2001. The said land is part of

the acquisition proceedings of the lands for the purposes

of Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project.

66. The petitioner, claiming to be the legatee under the

Will dated 15.04.1993, had claimed compensation. The

respondent No. l had paid a sum of Rs.51,36,250/- by

means of an Account Payee Cheque on 11.01.2007 through

negotiation by entering into agreement under Section 29(2)

of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966

(hereinafter referred to as 'the KIAD Act'). The petitioner

had also executed the Indemnity Bond in full and final

settlement of compensation towards her claim. The copies

of the agreement, indemnity bond and payment voucher

have been produced as Annexures-Rl to R3 respectively by

the respondent No.2 along with the statement of objections.

Though the petitioner had received the compensation, she

has never disclosed the same in the writ petition. There

has been suppression of facts besides delay and laches.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:

67. As mentioned above, the land in question came to be

acquired under a Preliminary Notification dated 19.12.1998,

followed by the Final Notification dated 08.05.2003.

Thereafter, the notice dated 22.07.2003 was issued under

Section 28(6) of the KIAD Act and the notice dated

12.09.2003 was issued under Section 29(2) of the said

Act for settlement of compensation by negotiations, as

stipulated under Section 29 of the KIAD Act. The Price

Advisory Committee headed by the Deputy

Commissioner had determined the compensation at

Rs.7,00,000/- per acre for, agricultural lands and

Rs.8,00,000/- per acre for converted lands, which

includes market value, statutory benefits viz., 30%

solatium, 12% additional market value and interest in

full and final satisfaction towards compensation payable

in respect of the land acquired. The petitioner, being

satisfied with the said offer, accepted for the same by

executing agreement under Section 29(2) of the Act

and therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled for

any more compensation or interest. The petitioner

cannot now wriggle out of the contract and claim

allotment of land on the basis of some promise, consent

etc.

68. The contention of the petitioner that under the

notice dated 11.01.2007 (Annexure-E) the respondents

had promised to pay further compensation is not borne

out from the record. There is no scope under the FWA for

further compensation. The claim for further compensation

in terms of allotment of the land would be opposed to the

project and the law declared by the Supreme Court in

BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR

AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER vs

NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE

([2021] 18 SCC 401). Paragraphs 84, 88, 89 and 90

of the said judgment, which are relevant, are extracted

hereunder:

"84. It is not necessary for us to dilate on other aspects regarding the efficacy of the FWA and the PTR or the other agreements executed between the parties, having held that it is for the State to consider the proposal for allowing the Project proponents to deviate from the stipulations and specifications of the FWA and the PTR and until that decision is taken by the State or its instrumentalities including the Empowered Committee constituted in terms of the FWA, the Planning Authority cannot process the proposal/application directly submitted

to it by the Project proponents. Further, such non-compliant proposal/ application submitted by the Project proponents directly to the Planning Authority must be regarded as infirm, invalid and non est in law.

88. We are not impressed by this submission. The reported decision pressed into service does not go to the extent of justifying the direction issued by the High Court vide the impugned judgment to issue • commencement certificate. Indisputably, the question of issuing commencement certificate would arise only if the Planning Authority was fully satisfied that the proposal/plan submitted by the Project proponents is compliant in all respects in reference to the extant town planning rules and regulations. More so, because it is not a case where the Project proponents were invoking the provision regarding deemed approval of the modified plan submitted on 5-5-2012.

89. As a result, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the direction issued by ,the High Court in the impugned judgment, in any case, cannot be countenanced in law. But this question, if we may say so, has become academic for the view that we have already taken that the Project proponents could not have directly approached the Planning Authority for approval of modified proposal, which was replete with deviations from the stipulations and specifications in the FWA read with the PTR. This is so because the right in favour of the Project proponents to carry on development work on the lands referred to in the FWA and the PTR would enure only in conformity with the stipulations and specifications in the stated documents. It is not open to the

Project proponents to develop the land in any other manner, unless permitted by the State.

90. Taking overall view of the matter, we have no hesitation in allowing the present appeals filed by the Planning Authority and the State of Karnataka and thereby setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court with liberty to the Project proponents to first approach the State (under Article 7 of the FWA) for its prior permission to allow them to deviate from the stipulations and specifications in the FWA and the PTR. Upon consideration of such proposal, the competent authority of the State may take appropriate decision in the matter and if need be, obtain prior opinion of the Empowered Committee. However, this process must be completed in right earnest and no later than six months from the date of submission of the proposal to the competent authority of the State. If the decision is adverse to the Project proponents, it would be open to them to take recourse to the disputes resolution mechanism in terms of Article 18 of the FWA, if so advised. Only after prior permission is granted by the State regarding the proposed deviations, the Project proponents may then apply to the Planning Authority for permission to construct buildings/structures as per the applicable town planning regulations, which be considered on its own merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by its earlier communication dated 7-2-2015."

69. In the present writ petition, the following reliefs have

been sought:

"I) Direct the Respondents to provide the requisite/promised compensation which is due on the part of the Respondents, the Respondents are suppose to provide seven 40*60 sites and one 30*40 site to the Petitioner, as compensation, and the Respondents are also suppose to pay the interest to the Petitioner i.e. the interest on the amount of Rs.51,36,250 (Rs. Fifty one lakhs, thirty six thousand and two hundred fifty}, at rate fixed by this Hon'ble Court, from the date 08-05-2003 onwards, till the present date.

             II) Cost may be imposed against the
             Respondents, and in favour of the
             Petitioner, on account of the hardship
             and    inconvenience suffered by   the
             Petitioner. "


70.     As   mentioned        above,    the    Bangalore    Mysore

Infrastructure     Corridor      Project      was   conceived   for

construction of Bangalore to Mysore 110 km Expressway,

Peripheral Road connecting Bangalore-Hosur National

Highway (NH.7), Bangalore-Pune National Highway (NH.4)

and Bangalore-Mangalore National Highway (NH.48) and

link roads. Apart from construction of expressway and the

link roads, the project proponent was supposed to

construct 5 townships as approved by the State

Government in terms of the FWA. The relevant conditions

viz., 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 of the FWA are extracted

hereunder:

"3.0 In brief, the project envisages construction of four land expressway between Bangalore-Mysore (110 Kms) with a provision for extending the same to six land in future. To disburse the traffic at Bangalore, there will be a peripheral road connecting Bangalore-Hosur National Highway (N.H.7), Bangalore-Pune National Highway (N.H.4) and Bangalore- Mangalore National Highway (N.H.48).

4.0 To provide easy and fast access to the Centre of the city, a separate link road and an elevated road will be provided. A link road will also be provided to the city of Mysore. All these roads would be express highways and no other roads will come across the same. Such roads will either pass above the expressway or under the expressway.

5.0 This project work will be constructed completely by this private entrepreneurs with their own resources and keeping with them for thirty years to get their return of the expenditure, profit etc., through collection of tolls. The land acquisition expenditure will also be borne by them. To make this project viable they had proposed seven townships. These seven townships were

for independent purposes like Corporate centre, Commercial centre, Industrial centre, Farming and Marketing centre, Heritage centre, Agricultural centre and Eco-Tourism centre.

6.0 According to the proposal, the consortium have made provision for providing Corporate centre (township No.1) and Commercial centre (township No.2) near Bidadi and Heritage centre (township No.3), Farming and Marketing centre (township No.4) and Industrial centre (township No.5) near Ramanagar and Agricultural centre (township No.6) between Mandya-Srirangapatna and Eco- Tourism centre (township No.7) near Srirangapatna. Considering the opinion of the Finance Department and also for making this project economically viable the Government considered it profitable to have five townships leaving the township No.3, the Heritage centre at Ramanagara and Township No.6, Agricultural centre, near Mandya."

71. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of

BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA

PLANNING AUTHORITY (supra), the project proponents

are obliged to develop the projects only in the manner

provided for in the FWA. Apart from what is provided, the

project proponents do not have any right to form layout or

develop the land other than 5 townships in terms of the

provisions of the FWA.

72. As noted above, the project proponents/consortium

and the State had entered into the FWA on 03.04.1997 for

Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project

regarding construction of Bangalore to Mysore 110 km

expressway, peripheral road connecting Bangalore-Hosur

National Highway (NH.7), Bangalore-Pune National

Highway (NH.4) and Bangalore-Mangalore National

Highway (NH.48) and link roads. The consortium is also

obliged for setting up of 5 townships i.e., for providing

Corporate Centre (Township No. l), Commercial Centre

(Township No.2) near Bidadi, Farming and Marketing

Centre (Township No.4) and Industrial Centre (Township

No.5) near Ramanagar and Eco-Tourism Centre (Township

No.7) near Srirangapatna.

73. The NICE Limited had filed W.P.Nos.16576-

16577/2015 and connected matters against the

Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning

Authority (BMICAP), the respondent, for grant of approval

for the layout and building plan application dated

05.05.2012 seeking permission to develop a group

housing scheme under the FWA dated 03.04.1997 in

different survey numbers at Kommagatta Village, Kengeri

Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk (at interchanges 5/7 of

peripheral road) covering 42 acres 30 guntas of land. This

Court, vide order dated 15.10.2019, had directed the

BMICAP to issue Commencement Certificate to the

respondent No.2-NICE Limited. The said order came to be

challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

No.2116/2020 and as mentioned above, the Supreme

Court passed a detailed judgment (reported in (2021) 18

sec 401). In view of the categorical findings recorded by

the Supreme Court that without prior approval of the

State, the project proponents would have no right to seek

approval from the BMICAP. The NICE made an application

seeking approval of development of plan proposed in

Interchange 5/7 and Interchange 7/7 of the peripheral

road by communications dated 22.03.2022 and

01.04.2022 and the same were rejected by the State as

the main object of the project is to reduce traffic

congestion and reduce urban density by providing counter

magnets for urbanisation in the demarcated townships.

The rejection order dated 17.03.2023 is produced along

with the statement of objections as Annexure-R.3.

74. In view of the aforestated facts, there is no option

available to the petitioner or the project proponent to

fqrm a fayout and allot the land to the petitioner. There is

no deviation possible in the FWA without prior approval of

the State. As the allotment of sites after accepting the

compensation and entering into the agreement and

forming a layout other than the 5 townships contemplated

in the FWA would be against the provisions of the FWA,

we do not find that there is any substance in this writ

petition.

PROLOGUE:

75. We have taken note of the judgment of the

Supreme Court extensively. Unfortunately, the very

purpose and object of the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure

Corridor to decongest the city with better civic amenities

and better opportunities for business and professionals

have remained a distant dream. In fact, except for the

peripheral roads where the toll plazas have been

constructed, only one km express way has been

constructed in almost 25 years.

76. Bangalore City was described by Justice Chinnappa

Reddy in the case of B.K.SRINIVASAN AND OTHERS vs

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS ([1987]1 SCC 658)

"As a beautiful city-once. It was a city with magic and

charm, with elegant avenues, gorgeous flowers, lovely

gardens and plentiful spaces. Not now. That was before

the invasion of concrete and steel, of soot and smoke, of

high-rise and the fast buck. Gone are the flowers, gone

are the trees, gone are the avenues, gone are the spaces.

We are now greeted with tall puffing chimneys and

monstrous high-rise buildings, both designed to hurt the

eye, the environment and the man. But they are thought

by many as symbols of progress and modernity. They

have come to stay. Perhaps they are necessary". The

citizens would like decongestion of the city, population

density to be controlled, lung spaces to be provided where

people can breathe, existing recreational facilities to be

preserved and improved, pollution and health hazards to

be removed, civic and social amenities to be provided and

less traffic on the road.

77. The beautiful and futuristic concept of decongesting

the city as conceived under the PTR has been killed by the

project opponents and the authorities at the cost of the

citizens and the environment. In fact, the concept and the

contract have got frustrated. No purpose would be served

for keeping the project alive when, in more than 25 years,

only one kilometer has been constructed. It would be in

the interest of the city, citizens, environment and the

future, to re-look at the project and take appropriate

action for fresh and new project discarding the old one.

The population of the city is more than 140 crores. The

snarling traffic and traffic jams are the orders of the day.

It takes hours to travel a small distance in the city. The

infrastructure facilities are crumbling down. The

environment is badly affected. The city is no longer the

city as described by Justice Chinnappa Reddy. The State

Government, therefore, must take necessary decision for

fresh planning by discarding the FWA at the earliest to

ameliorate the living conditions of the city. We hope that

an informed decision would be taken in this regard at the

earliest.

78. We also note that the project proponents are

collecting huge tolls by constructing the peripheral roads

and toll plazas. However, the Bangalore Mysore

Expressway and Infrastructure Corridor has remained only

on the papers. The project proponents are sitting on a

huge land bank, but without its proper usage as the

expressway has not yet been constructed and there is no

sign of it being constructed in future. Therefore, we direct

the State Government to re-look the project and take

appropriate steps in this regard.

79. With the aforesaid observations, we dismiss the

writ petition.

In view of dismissal of the writ petition, pending

IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and

accordingly, they stand disposed of.

Sd/-

(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/-

(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE NG/BKV