‘’Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited is sitting on a huge land bank without much progress’’. Karnataka High Court directs the State Government to bring fresh planning by discarding the Framework Agreement at the earliest.

Chandrika Vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer and others.

Writ Petition 17839 of 2010 decided on 9 January 2026.

Justice D K Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T.

Summary of Facts

The petitioner challenged the acquisition of her land (Sy. No. 59/2 of Jakkasandra Village) by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) for the benefit of M/s. NICE Ltd. (Respondent No. 2) for the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP). The primary contention was that the land was being acquired for "Township No. 1," which the petitioner claimed was not part of the original Framework Agreement (FWA) signed between the State Government and the project proponent. The petitioner argued that the acquisition was an "excess acquisition" beyond the scope of the infrastructure project and that the land was being diverted for private commercial exploitation rather than public purpose.

Legal Issues

• Scope of the Project: Whether the development of "Townships" along the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor constitutes an integral part of the "public purpose" infrastructure project.

• Excess Acquisition: Whether the acquisition of land for the BMICP project, specifically for township purposes, was in violation of the Framework Agreement or the directions of the Supreme Court in previous related litigations.

• Res Judicata / Stare Decisis: Whether the validity of the acquisition for this project had already been attained finality through previous judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

• Integrated Project: The Court relied heavily on the landmark Supreme Court decision in State of Karnataka vs. All India Manufacturers Organization (2006). It reiterated that the BMICP is an integrated infrastructure project where the highway and the five (later expanded) townships are inseparable. The revenue generated from the townships is intended to subsidize the cost of the highway, making the entire project a "public purpose."

• Finality of Litigation: The Court noted that the BMICP project has been the subject of extensive litigation for over two decades. The Supreme Court had previously directed that the project should be implemented as per the FWA and that no further hurdles should be created.

• Township Specifications: The Court examined the nature of the townships, noting they include residential, cultural, medical, and educational facilities. Specifically, for Township No. 1 (and others mentioned), the land use was found to be consistent with the modern town planning practices envisaged in the project design.

• No Merit in "Excess" Claim: The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove that the specific land in question was outside the geographical area required for the successful implementation of the corridor and its supporting townships.

Decision

The Writ Petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the acquisition proceedings, confirming that the land was required for a valid public purpose as part of the integrated Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project.

‘’Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited is sitting on a huge land bank without much progress’’. Karnataka High Court directs the State Government to bring fresh planning by discarding the Framework Agreement at the earliest.