Karnataka High Court dismisses petition against Peripheral Ring Road-II

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed petitions filed by landowners challenging the acquisition of land for the Peripheral Ring Road-II (PRR-II) project, covering the stretch between Hosur Road, Mysuru Road, and Tumakuru Road.

The six petitions, filed between 2014 and 2022, pertained to land in the villages of Kannahalli, Machohalli, and Sulikere.

The preliminary notifications for PRR-II were issued in December 2005 and November 2006, with the final notification published in July 2011.

The petitioners argued that the acquisition had lapsed and accused the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) of diverting the land for other purposes, including for creating a private layout.

Representing the BDA, senior advocate GS Kannur submitted that the petitioners’ land is part of the PRR-II scheme and includes a connecting road passing through the properties in question.

After reviewing the case, Justice ES Indiresh observed that the BDA had already completed 8.35 kilometers of the 10.35-km road, leaving only 1.82 km to be developed.

“I am of the view that, as the respondent, the BDA has laid the road in Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II) for more than 80 per cent of the project and as such, taking into consideration the difficulties arising in respect of the construction of the metro station, service road to enable the nearby habitants to reach main roads as well as taking necessary precaution of the safety of the vehicles and public in general.

“I am of the view that no interference be called for in respect of the quashing the impugned notifications issued by the respondent-authorities for the purpose of the formation of the Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II) and therefore, contention raised by the petitioners that the respondent-BDA has deviated from the original plan as well as excess land is being acquired cannot be accepted,” the court said.

Regarding the petitioners’ contention that a private layout was formed, and a work order was issued by the BDA, the court criticised the authority’s actions.

“It is pertinent to mention here that, action of the respondent-BDA, issuing such work order in 2015, knowing fully well that the impugned notifications are issued for the purpose of formation of the Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II), is deprecated and such action of the officers of the respondent-BDA, issuing work order cannot be accepted under the circumstance of case. However, I do not find merit in the arguments of the petitioners in these writ petitions (challenging acquisition proceedings),” the court said.