1 WP No. 17839 OF 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE, 9

TH

DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

WRIT PETITION NO. 17839 OF 2010 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

SMT. CHANDRIKA

W/O. H.N.VISHWANATH,

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

R/O NO.22, 2ND CROSS,

MARAPPA GARDEN,

BENSON TOWN POST,

BENGALURU-560046.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI K. KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION

OFFICER-I, K.I.A.D.B., NO.3/2,

KINI BUILDING, 1

ST

CROSS,

GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560009.

2. NICE LTD.,

BY ITS M.D., NO.1,

MIDFORD HOUSE,

MIDFORD GARDEN,

OFF: M.G.ROAD,

BENGALURU - 560001.

3. STATE GOVERNMENT OF

KARNATAKA,

BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BENGALURU - 560001.

®

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

2

4. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR

ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

REPRESENTED BY ITS

CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY,

NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE,

MIDFORD GARDEN,

OFF: M.G.ROAD,

BENGALURU - 560001.

(R-4 IMPLEADED V/O DATED

13.07.2011)

5. BENGALURU-MYSURU

INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA

PLANNING AUTHORITY,

P.B.NO.5257, M.S.BUILDING,

GATE-4,

DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BENGALURU - 560001.

(R-5 IMPLEADED V/O DATED

28.08.2025)

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

SRI R.V.S.NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE AND

SRI. VIDUR NAIR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;

PROF. RAVI VERMA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W

SRI. SIDHARTH BABU RAO, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR R-3;

SRI. S.B.MATHAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;

SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-5

)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT

THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE THE REQUISITE/PROMISED

COMPENSATION WHICH IS DUE ON THE PART OF THE

RESPONDENTS AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR ORDERS ON 18.09.2025, COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE

D.K. SINGH

PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

3 WP No. 17839 OF 2010

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

BACKGROUND:

1. As noted in the judgment, Bangalore-Mysore

Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority &

Anr. Vs. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited

& Ors. (2021) 18 SCC 401. Historically, the Chiefta in

from Magadi, Kempegowda built Bangalore during 1597

and established a few towers on the boundary limits of

Bangalore. The Mughals conquered it in 1687. It is said, it

was sold to Chikka Devaraya in 1690 for Rupees thre e

lakhs. It was Hyder Ali, who got it as a personal Jagir in

1759. However in 1791, Tippu Sultan was given suzerainty

over it after the Treaty of Srirangapatnam. After the fall

of Tippu at Srirangapatnam, the same was returned to the

Hindu Royalty in 1799. A military cantonment of th e

British was established in 1809 and Bangalore later on

flourished as an administrative centre since 1830. It grew

spectacularly after 1951.

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

4

2. The population of Bangalore was 12 lakhs during 1961

and it rose to 29 lakhs as per 1981 census. In 1981, it was

the fifth most populated city in the country and accounted

for 25% of the population of the State - Hubli-Dhar wad,

the next urban centre accounting for a fifth of Bangalore

size population.

3. Compared to Karnataka's growth in population dur ing

1981-1991 which was 20.09%, the growth of populatio n

of Bangalore Urban Area was 59.08% during 1971-1981

and 38.00% in 1981-1991 and that of rural Bangalore was

24.30% during 1971-1981 and 14.70% in 1981-1991.

4. As against this, Mysore with a population of 6 .52

lakhs in 1991 recorded a growth of 24.97% in 1971-

1981 and 21.58% in 1981-1991 at the district level.

Various agencies estimated the expected population of

Bangalore during 2001 as 70 lakhs (Town Planning

Department) and 82 lakhs (anticipated by Bangalore

Water Supply and Sewage Board). The Comprehensive

Development Plan ("CDP") 1984 for 2001 of Bangalore

Development Authority ("BDA") projected a population of

5 WP No. 17839 OF 2010

70.00 lakhs for Bangalore in 2001. The revised (199 5)

CDP for 2011 AD proposed land uses for 56,465 hecta res

as against 43,928 hectares during 2001. This is in addition

to the green belt, surrounding the conurbation area.

5. The rapid increase in population necessitated a thinking

process to contain Bangalore to a reasonable size, assure it

the desired level of civic and social services to k eep its

premier status and direct additional growth to alte rnate

places in a desirable manner. The acute problems of

Bangalore are increasing level of pollution, pressu re on

land, acute shortage of water, inadequate sewage sy stem

and lack of proper sewage treatment and disposal

arrangements, shortage of power, shortage of reside ntial

accommodation, inefficient telecommunication system ,

paucity of land space within green belt etc.

6. Bangalore, located at an elevation of +900 met res is

suffering from want of a good transport system, int er and

intracity wise. A reliable power supply system to assure 1000

mega watts was planned as a part of Karnataka power

requirement. Tourist and amusement areas like T.G. Halli

Reservoir, Hesarghatta Tank, Bannerghata National Park and

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

6

Ramohalli Banyan Tree and Kanva Reservoir were cons idered,

but no active steps were taken. The region lacks the facility of

good environment parks or amusement places.

7. The above and many other factors indicate that there is

a need for a policy to establish urban growth centers, with

dependable infrastructure and accessibility to the

metropolitan area along a fast corridor. Examples of this

nature are many in Switzerland, Norway, Mourville aw ay

from Paris in France are just a few instances of polycentred

settlements working as counter magnets, with a stro ng

support base.

8. Considering the aforesaid factors, the Infrastructure Corridor

Project Technical Report (PTR) was prepared in August 1995 for

construction of Integrated Infrastructure Corridor and Finance

Project (IICFP or the Project) situated between Bangalore and

Mysore consisting of residential, industrial and co mmercial

facilities such as, among other things, self-sustaining townships,

expressways, utilities and amenities including powe r-plants,

industrial plants, water treatment plants and other

infrastructural developments specifically described in the PTR.

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

9. For implementing the said project, the authority viz.,

Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Plann ing

Authority (BMICAP) was constituted under the provisions of the

Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.

THE SALIENT FEATURES OF THE PTR:

10. The IICFP was conceived and formalized to const ruct a

privately financed infrastructure corridor and seve n new

townships between Bangalore City and Mysore City. T he Project

also included construction of the southern section of Bangalore

City Outer Peripheral Road. A modern four-lane road

(extendable to six-lane) limited access expressway; potable

water, sewage treatment, electric power transmission facilities;

and fibre optic communication cables were the part of the PTR.

The southern section of the Outer Peripheral Road w as to link

the infrastructure corridor with the region's entire highway

network. The seven new townships conceived in the P TR were

to be organic, self-sufficient communities, each with its own

unique economic base and directly served by the infrastructure

corridor. This would have been to fulfil the National and State

policy goals for population dispersion, infrastruct ure

modernisation and economic development, and inevitably,

7

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

8

economic and infrastructure privatisation. As a limited-access

expressway with a continuous barrier on either side, the road

was intended to prevent ribbon development, increase efficiency

of individual travel and cargo movement, and improv e vehicle

safety. It was also intended to provide access to existing and

proposed townships, for which nine interchanges wer e to be

constructed along the length of the expressway. The seven

townships conceptualized in the PTR were:-

1. The Corporate Counter (Township Site No.1)

2. The Commercial Centre (Township Site No.2)

3. The Farming Market Centre (Township Site No.3)

4. The Industrial Centre (Township Site No.4)

5. The Heritage Centre (Township Site No.5)

6. The Agricultural Centre (Township Site No.6)

7. The Eco-Tourism Centre (Township Site No.7)

The location of the Townships and the Centres as

mentioned above were clearly given in the PTR.

11. The proposed expressway would bypass congested village

roadways eliminating conflict between intercity and local traffic.

By limiting access to the expressway and charging t olls, local

traffic would get discouraged from using the corridor. As a

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

result, the corridor would significantly reduce tra vel time

between Bangalore and Mysore to about one and one-h alf

hours. The expressway and its facilities were requi red to be

constructed of the best materials and implemented using state-

of-the-art highway engineering and construction techniques.

12. The State Government and Nandi Infrastructure C orridor

Enterprise Limited (NICE) had executed the Framewor k

Agreement (FWA) on 03.04.1997 setting out various t erms for

the purposes of developing the proposed infrastructure corridor

as conceived in the PTR. The FWA was followed by

supplementary agreements dated 06.10.1999 and 31.03 .2000

between the State Government and NICE. Besides the

supplementary agreements, a tripartite agreement da ted

09.08.2002 was executed between the State, NICE and Nandi

Economic Corridor Enterprise Limited (NECE). NICE a nd NECE

are jointly referred to as "project proponents". Th e FWA

delineates the locations/areas where the five self- sustaining

townships were to be set up by the project proponen ts. The

FWA makes reference to the provisions of the PTR in respect of

certain matters.

13. The Outline Development Plan/Master Plan was pr epared

by the Planning Authority for the new planning area on

9

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

10

12.02.2004 and got approval of the State. This Master Plan was

not intended to materially change or alter the locations for five

townships specified in the FWA.

14. The townships along the proposed Bangalore-Myso re

Expressway would go a long way in reducing pressure on

Bangalore. These settlements should, however, take into

account the growth pressure likely to be faced by them after

a decade of their completion. Creation of new settlements is

likely to bring in better results compared to improvements

and modification for creating a new urban extension s to

metropolitan Bangalore as these actions need to nec essarily

serve under severe constraints on the other facilities like

land, transport and water. Usewise for any unit of

expenditure, the efficacy of modifications will be

comparatively less. The environment and purity will only

reduce. But in the case of new settlements, it will be

easier to achieve. better results. It is, however, necessary

to ensure that the existing structures arid balances in the

rural sector are not thoughtlessly disturbed; the

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

emphasis in the new townships should be for achievi ng a

high degree of green and low rise and low density

development.

15. A very important aspect is to give orientation towards

the direction in which new townships should grow. Referring

to Bangalore, good transport facilities towards Mysore are

in the offing which is a good boost for industrial and

tourism growth. Mysore having an excellent source o f

shelter, tourism, industry, and raw materials, will serve

very well the purpose of an important supporting city (as

the other end of corridor of development with other

facilities and settlements dispersed judiciously in between).

Secondly, there are three medium irrigation project s

nearabout Bangalore viz., the Manchanabele Project, the

lggalur project and the Arobele project, which can yield

some water for supporting the growth. Rivers Arakav athi,

Shimsa and Cauveri are on the corridor towards Myso re.

The groundwater Department has ascertained that the re is

good groundwater development possibility for making about

33,000 additional well structures in Bangalore; 41,600 in

Mysore and 42,100 in Mandya. At least it indicates good

11

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

12

groundwater condition at depths ranging 50m and mor e. By

far the climatic and physical conditions in this area are very

congenial, compared to some other areas in Karnatak a.

Therefore, it is most desirable to develop the belt as

corridor with settlements of high order of infrastructure well

connected to the two metropolitan towns of Bangalore and

Mysore. Regarding selection of Townships PTR of the

corridor would state as noted in the aforesaid judgment as

under.

16. Estimates indicate that the population of Bangalore

will reach 85 lakhs by 2011. There is an absolute need to

restrict the population to 70 lakhs by 2011. Even f or

achieving this objective, a number of measures to prepare

Bangalore for sustaining a holding capacity of 70 lakhs will

be required to be taken. The proposal now is an effort to

absorb almost 7 to 8 lakhs population in the propos ed

corridor by developing seven townships (Mandya, Mad dur,

Ramanagaram and Channpatna shall be geared to absor b

about 2.0 lakhs additional population). The balance of 6.0

lakhs population has to be diverted across towards other

countermagnets and some administrative actions taken.

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

17. The selection of the seven townships and the ne ed

for land has been done by physical examination of t he

present ground level conditions and development. Si nce an

expressway is being considered, a comprehensive vie w has

been taken about the availability of access to the corridor

from the proposed townships, each of which will be given an

access to the expressway.

18. Availability of water is an important considera tion.

There are no water

sources of perennial

-nature, barring

Cauveri which can be tapped for water supply to the se

townships. groundwater conditions do indicate the p resence

of water at depths 40 to 50 metres between the rock s, but

this is not an adequate source to sustain the natur e and

level of development. Even the National Water Policy hints

that drinking water for urban areas shall be met from surface

flows, and only in rural areas, extensive dependence on tube

wells may be considered. Heavy exploitation of subsoil water

can reduce the growth of greens. The idea of bringing water

from Cauveri along the expressway and supplying to the

townships is the only solution. Some water to be ta pped

through tubewells and water ponding by digging lakes can be

only auxiliary measures.

13

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

14

19. Efforts are being made to avoid acquisition of lands

which are under good cultivation. Such lands which are

good for agriculture and gardens are being almost

avoided. Forest land is also being avoided. Since i t is

necessary to have one expanse of land of about 2,00 0

acres and more for about 1 lakh population (or more ),

search was made for presence of continuous plots of land,

as far as possible, forming a regular geometric fig ure

without wedges projecting in or out. However, in a few

cases, a few villages and major district roads exists on

the ground in the midst of such expansive areas. In such

cases, the villages and road are to be integrated suitably

with other planning, and some measures will have to be

taken to integrate them with main area. This will b e a

right step to encourage the rural settlements adopt ing

new norms of a system and not distort, or feel disparities.

20. The area on the corridor towards Maddur and

Mandya are highly agricultural in nature with exist ing

irrigation facilities. It is for this reason, that more

townships are located in the first half of the corridor near

Bangalore and only 2 out of seven in the other half of

corridor near Mysore.

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

21. Section 1 of the PTR shows the location of the

townships and the areas and the location of express way.

Where the township area is away from the expressway , a

dedicated road with good specification is proposed to be

constructed up to the expressway as a part of the township

development. They will be served through the Expres sway

interchanges.

22. To avoid speculation, no survey of land has been done.

Help of Topo maps has been taken to know ground

conditions. Ground conditions are further examined by

limited walking along. There are some changes on gr ound

since the last survey work was done for preparing t opo

maps. Land use maps of each township have been prep ared

to indicate the suggested breakup of areas. After the land is

finally selected and ground survey done to some ext ent of

precision (the existing maps are to a scale of 1:50,000), the

land uses firmed up and density can be finally decided with

zoning and other development components like FAR, H eight,

Set Backs, Architectural Control etc.

15

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

16

23. The present comprehensive development plan for

Bangalore shows the following land use pattern. In

addition, there is a green belt on the periphery:

Residential

43.16%

Commercial

2.91%

Industrial

6.81%

Public and Open Spaces

13.79%

Public and semi public

8.69%

Transportation

20.72%

Unclassified

3.92%

100.00%

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

24. Some townships are exclusively designed to prom ote

industry and one for environment and amusement. The

land use pattern at City level in Bangalore cannot be

extended for townships outside. The land use patter n in

the other township areas will generally be as below:

Housing

30-50%

Parks, Open Spaces 15-20% (excl. Agr. university)

Commercial 5-10%

Industrial 0-20%

Roads & utilities 20%

Municipal & Institutional 5-15%

100%

25. Subsequent chapters of the PTR describe the concept

of township layouts infrastructural services and th e

manner in which they will be designed and provided."

(

emphasis supplied)

The Conceptual Aspects of Townships is delineated a s under:-

17

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

18

CONCEPTUAL ASPECTS OF TOWNSHIPS :

26. The problem of the urban community multiply wit h

the increasing complexity of our age. The physical

expansion of cities is running out of control, and the

economic and social consequences command the

attention of civic leadership in

Government, business and

industry. The Practical limitation of the pyramidal form of

the City has forced decentralization. When the cong estion

at the core becomes unbearable, the inner layers sl ip out.

The present exercise is to contain the phenomenon b y

planning the infrastructural corridor having seven new

townships to cater to the varying and complex needs of

the region, along the proposed expressway connectin g

Bangalore and Mysore. These are indicated on the in dex

map.

27. The new townships would be relatively of small sizes,

designed to encourage pedestrians circulation and m aintain

close proximity to surrounding open space. The plan s

indicate an abundance of space flowing throughout

the community. The special endeavour has been m ade to

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

preserve natural wooded areas or unusual topographi cal

characteristics in all the towns. The existing villages are

assimilated in the overall schemes of development a s they

are existing on all sites. The human scale of predominates in

the total planning of all the new townships which a re

planned as self contained communities seeking a bal ance

between sources of employment, business centres, ce ntre

for Fashion Technology, Medical and other research centres

etc. are suitably located in various townships, which are

essentially organic elements in a broad programme o f

decentralization of the congested urban centres of Bangalore

and Mysore.

28. In all townships, the floor space required to b e

occupied by people and ground space for circulation has been

carefully worked out. The emerging pattern is a bal ance

between these elements. The high rise 'Land Mark'

buildings, for all towns have been thought of essen tially in

the commercial sectors, to dominate the skyline and also to

be seen from the Expressway.

29. The grid pattern is followed for roads with circles and

radials in some cases. Three types of principal rights of way

have

been followed, the respective width being 33.0

mtrs 24.5 mtrs and 18.00 mtrs.

19

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

20

30. Each neighbourhood in the riew townships has a small

subcentre for shopping, a primary school and social facilities.

The secondary schools serve several neighbourhoods.

31. The Figure at 3.1 indicates the general locations of the

townships along the proposed Expressway and existin g

Bangalore Mysore State Highway 17. The existing vil lages

and towns are also indicated. The distance in km is shown on

the drawing along the alignment of proposed Express way.

There are five townships within the distance of 40 kms

from Bangalore and two townships in the vicinity of Mysore

on either side of Kaveri River.

32. Township No.1 assumes great significance due to its

proximity to Bangalore. It is situated on either side of the

Expressway on the fringes of the Outer Ring Road of

Bangalore City.

The nature of this township may be

roughly identified as a Corporate township providin g

facilities for Research and Development, Business C entre,

Hotels, Golf Course, Residential, and related infrastructure.

Some facilities from the core of the City could be shifted

here in a planned and organised manner.

21 WP No. 17839 OF 2010

33. The entrance and exit of the township is throug h an

interchange and toll booths. This is located on the West of

the Town.

The Town is provided with a Green Belt on its

periphery. Due consideration has been given to the ecological

and environmental factors. The total area of the township is

2,792 acres.

34. The 'Land Mark' buildings are proposed at appropr iate

locations.

The City is designed as a self contained entity

with all facilities, including a Hospital and a College with

appropriate number of Primary Schools, High Schools and

other town requirements.

35. Township No. 2 is located about 10 kms from the

Bangalore conurbation boundary. The site is propose d to be

developed as a commercial township, contributing to

relieve the pressures of urbanization.

36. Covering an area of 1,868 acres, the township i s

situated about 7 to 8 kms off the Bangalore Mysore

Expressway and 4 kms from the existing Railway Line and

State Highway 17 to the South of the Township.

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

22

37. The existing site features are more or less sui tably

modified according to the layout with an exception of a few

rivulets, natural water bodies and hillocks and rocky outcrops

scattered within the site boundary. The proposed to wnship

site is bounded by two roads leading to Bangalore f rom

Hejjala and Bidadi Towns. A number of existing sett lements

are present all around the site boundary, especially towards

the south while two settlements fall within the site boundary.

38. The basic design of the township revolves aroun d the

central core. This central core is the major commer cial,

business, services and institutional hub of the tow n. The

residential area is distributed all around this central core.

39. The multifunctional central core offers varied

services, right from a commercial complex to hotel, bus

terminal municipal offices, institutional and office use,

hospital, and college, all located within 2 kms from the

farthest point in the township and hence confirms to the

standard of human scale, facilitating use of non-motorised

form of transport.

23 WP No. 17839 OF 2010

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 environmen tally

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 propos ed

Expressway which will be provided through an interchange on

the expressway.

42. Township No. 3 is not described in the judgme nt

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

it is about 36 and 37 kms West of Bangalore along t he

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

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

24

the township and the environmental considerations s hall

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 g reen

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 residen tial

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 Medi cal

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

centre for religious studies with sub-centres for all world

25 WP No. 17839 OF 2010

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 necess ary

infrastructure support required in this region for

perspective requirements.

49. The townships will be developed in line with mo dern

town planning practices. Special consideration should be

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

26

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 Center s,

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 h ave

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 - encoura ge

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.

27 WP No. 17839 OF 2010

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 Enterpr ise.

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 th e

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 :-

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

28

"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

29 WP No. 17839 OF 2010

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

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

30

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;

31 WP No.17839 OF 2010

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

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

32

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 b e

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 Mysor e

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 hav e

been filed by different people in respect of this corridor,

which would include the landowners and others. Thi s

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

33

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

by developing seven townships on the Bangalore-Myso re

infrastructure road has clogged and congested the H igh

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 add ed

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 orderl y

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, expressway s,

utilities and amenities including power plants,

industrial plants, water, sewage treatment plants and

34

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

other infrastructural developments.) The avowed obj ect

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 decisi on

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

townships in the entire belt, so as to fulfil the N ational

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 Pro ject

proponents would be allowed to develop only five townships

at the demarcated locations, which would be self-sustaining

with sufficient infrastructure for ensuring a smoot h and

extent-free traffic on Bangalore-Mysore Expressway

stretched to about 140 kilometres.

35

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

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 ev er

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,

36

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

the township, the power plants, the telecommunicati on

facilities, the water supply facility and the waste

management treatment facilities and other

developments and the acquisition, design, construct ion,

engineering, financing and implementation thereof a s

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 define d

component of the infrastructure corridor project as held by

the Supreme Court. In the aforesaid judgment of

Bangalore-Mysore Infra-Corridor Area Planning Autho rity

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."

37

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

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 havi ng

different purpose such as Corporate Center, Industr ial

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, w hich

applies proprio vigore to the expression townships in FWA.

The term "townships", no doubt includes housing, bu t 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 Schedu le

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 v ital

question of the extent of land to be used for diffe rent

activities such as toll road and township areas, township

38

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

wise held that the project proponents would be obli ged

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 propone nts

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 Space s

etc, are also provided for within the townships. Th e

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 rea d

with PTR in the judgment and said that the basic

infrastructure for the townships would be substanti ally

completed within (i.e. Minimal reasonable facilities that

enable some people to be able to live in the townsh ips)

within 12 years from the date of the toll road completion

39

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

notice. The township completion date in no event sh all

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 provision s 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 supplement ary

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 obligat ions

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

40

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

also does not alter or modify the stipulations and

specifications for setting up of five self-sustaini ng

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 propose d

proponents for group housing scheme in Section A of

the project at Intersection 5/7 on the peripheral r oad

was found to be against the FWA and PTR.

The Supreme

Court held that the project proponents would be obl iged

to develop the project only in the manner provided for in

FWA. The right to develop the project bestowed on t he

project proponents flows primarily from the FWA and the

supplementary Agreements in this regard. The Suprem e

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 propon ents

could justifiably approach the planning authority directly

for grant of permission as per their extent regulations and

41

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

Municipal laws applicable in that regard, to constr uct

buildings and structures for establishing a township. In

other words, A proposal/obligation for project proponent

should be a valid proposal/obligation to the planni ng

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 furthe r by

the planning authority. The Supreme Court has held that

the land acquired by the State from private landown ers

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 th at

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 f rom

FWA.

42

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

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 connect ion

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

stated housing complex could not spread over 42 acr es

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 stipulat ions

in FWA in particular unlike the project proponents.

43

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

62. Thus the Supreme Court, in categorical terms ha s

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

the specification provided in FWA/PTR in the design ated

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 Ar ea

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 measur ing

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.

44

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

66. The petitioner, claiming to be the legatee unde r the

Will dated 15.04.1993, had claimed compensation. Th e

respondent No. l

had paid a sum of Rs.51,36,250/- by

means of an Account Payee Cheque on 11.01.2007 thro ugh

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 fi nal

settlement of compensation towards her claim. The c opies

of the agreement, indemnity bond and payment vouche r

have been produced as Annexures-Rl to R3 respective ly 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

45

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

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

12.09.2003 was issued under Section 29(2) of the sa id

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.

46

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

68. The contention of the petitioner that under the

notice dated 11.01.2007 (Annexure-E) the respondent s

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 i n

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 extra cted

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

47

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

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

48

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

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."

49

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

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 Expressw ay,

Peripheral Road connecting Bangalore-Hosur National

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

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

link roads. Apart from construction of expressway and the

link roads, the project proponent was supposed to

50

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

construct 5 townships as approved by the State

Government in terms of the FWA. The relevant condit ions

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

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

51

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

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 man ner

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.

52

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

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 k m

expressway, peripheral road connecting Bangalore-Ho sur

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

Highway (NH.4) and Bangalore-Mangalore National

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

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

Corporate Centre (Township No. l), Commercial Centr e

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

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

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

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 Plann ing

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

53

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

different survey numbers at Kommagatta Village, Ken geri

Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk (at interchanges 5/7 o f

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

Court, vide order dated 15.10.2019, had directed th e

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 applicat ion

seeking approval of development of plan proposed in

Interchange 5/7 and Interchange 7/7 of the peripher al

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 township s.

The rejection order dated 17.03.2023 is produced along

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

54

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

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

available to the petitioner or the project proponen t 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 F WA,

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 professio nals

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.

55

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

76. Bangalore City was described by Justice Chinnap pa

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, love ly

gardens and plentiful spaces. Not now. That was bef ore

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 thou ght

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 hazard s to

be removed, civic and social amenities to be provided and

less traffic on the road.

56

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

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 b e in

the interest of the city, citizens, environment and the

future, to re-look at the project and take appropri ate

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 S tate

Government, therefore, must take necessary decision for

fresh planning by discarding the FWA at the earlies t to

ameliorate the living conditions of the city. We hope that

an informed decision would be taken in this regard at the

earliest.

57

WP No. 17839 OF 2010

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 o n 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 tak e

appropriate steps in this regard.

79. With the aforesaid observations, we dismiss the

writ petition.

In view of dismissal of the writ petition, pendin g

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

58