‘Remains Only On Paper’: Karnataka High Court Directs State To Re-Look Bangalore–Mysore Expressway Project Implementation
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T directed the State Government to re-look the implementation of the Bangalore–Mysore Expressway and Infrastructure Corridor project and to take appropriate steps, after recording that the decongestion plan has largely remained on paper despite the passage of decades. In its order dismissing the writ petition, the Bench also dealt with a landowner’s challenge arising from land acquisition for the corridor and declined relief seeking further compensation, interest, and allotment of sites, noting that a settlement had been accepted and that land acquired for the project is to be used only within the project framework. The Bench referred to a 2021 Supreme Court decision in Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority & Anr. Vs. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited & Ors that upheld the planning and construction of the corridor project.
The proceedings arose from a petition filed by Chandrika, a landowner whose land was acquired for the Bangalore–Mysore Infrastructure Corridor project, seeking additional compensation. The writ petition invoked Articles 226 and 227, and the acquisition framework referred to includes the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, including Sections 28(6) and 29(2) concerning negotiated settlement under Section 29. A notice dated 11.01.2007 (Annexure-E) was relied upon as part of the material placed before the Court.
The Bangalore–Mysore Infrastructure Corridor project is described as having been set out in an Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report (PTR) prepared in August 1995 for an integrated corridor between Bengaluru and Mysuru, comprising residential, industrial and commercial facilities, including self-sustaining townships, an expressway, utilities and amenities described in the PTR. The Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority (BMICAP) was constituted under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 for implementing the project. The project is described as including a 110 km Bengaluru–Mysuru expressway, a peripheral road connecting NH-7, NH-4 and NH-48, and link roads, along with townships under the framework.
The Court recorded: “As of today the population of Bengaluru would be around 1.4 crores.” It stated: “This ambitious project and planning as delineated in the PTR has remained only on paper, even 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 recorded: “It has constructed 47 kilometres peripheral roads from which it collects toll tax to its profit.” It stated: “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.” It recorded: “Not even a single township has been developed in last 35 years.” It stated: “The result is that, today it is difficult to travel on the roads of Bangalore and mobility has come to standstill.” It recorded: “A few kilometre travelling consumes considerable time, may be hours.”
On the consequences of the project’s present status, the Court recorded: “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.” It stated: “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.”
In its prologue, the Court recorded: “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.” It stated: “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.”
On whether the existing framework continued to serve the project’s stated public purpose, the Court recorded: “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.” It stated: “In fact, the concept and the contract have got frustrated.” It recorded: “No purpose would be served for keeping the project alive when, in more than 25 years, only one kilometer has been constructed.”
Linking these observations to the need for governmental action, the Court recorded: “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.” It stated: “The population of the city is more than 140 crores.” It recorded: “The snarling traffic and traffic jams are the orders of the day.” It stated: “It takes hours to travel a small distance in the city.” It recorded: “The infrastructure facilities are crumbling down.” It stated: “The environment is badly affected.”
On the course it recorded for the State, the Court stated: “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.” It recorded: “We hope that an informed decision would be taken in this regard at the earliest.”
The Court recorded: “We also note that the project proponents are collecting huge tolls by constructing the peripheral roads and toll plazas.” It stated: “However, the Bangalore Mysore Expressway and Infrastructure Corridor has remained only on the papers.” It recorded: “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.”
It then directed: “Therefore, we direct the State Government to re-look the project and take appropriate steps in this regard.” It concluded: “With the aforesaid observations, we dismiss the writ petition.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri K. Kiran Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate, Sri R.V.S. Naik, Senior Counsel, along with Sri Nitin Prasad, Advocate and Sri Vidur Nair, Advocate, Prof. Ravi Verma Kumar, Senior Counsel, along with Sri Sidharth Babu Rao, Special Counsel, Sri S.B. Mathapathi, Advocate,
Sri Yogesh D. Naik, Advocate.
Case Title: Smt. Chandrika v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 17839 of 2010
Bench: Justice D.K. Singh, Justice Venkatesh Naik T
