Karnataka High Court upholds law allowing BWSSB to lay sewers over private properties without land acquisition

A view of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board treatment plant next to the Vrishabhavathi River on Mysuru Road in Bengaluru. | Photo credit: K. MURALI KUMAR

The Karnataka High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) Act, 1964, which allows the BWSSB to place and maintain sewerage over, under, along or over any immovable property, including private property, without acquiring land.

Referring to sections 39 (authority to run lines), 76 (buildings and private streets not to be erected or constructed over sewers without permission) and 77 (rights of user of property to sewer), the court said that these “provisions constitute a constitutionally valid statutory framework creating a limited legal right of the user, accompanied by procedural and compensatory guarantees”.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order while partially allowing the petitions filed by the land owners, TN Chandrashekar Gowda, Jethronica and others challenging the use of their land for laying sewerage by the BWSSB.

Pointing out that the provisions of the Act require the BWSSB to cause as little damage as possible and mandate full compensation for the damage caused, the court said that “the statutory scheme therefore does not envisage the unlimited taking or appropriation of land . . .”

“If acquisition proceedings were mandatory every time a sewer line crossed private land, the practical consequence would be the fragmentation of infrastructure projects and substantial disruption of the implementation of essential civil works,” the court said.

However, the court made it clear that the constitutionality of these provisions is upheld provided that the statutory safeguards are meaningfully applied and that the compensation remains realistic and commensurate with the actual harm suffered by the affected landowners.

The court clarified that the statutory right of user under Section 77, even if it causes permanent restrictions or inconvenience to the owner, does not in any case automatically lead to compulsory acquisition of the property requiring acquisition proceedings and market value compensation under the 2013 Act, as the right granted to BWSSB is only a limited right of use and not a transfer of ownership.

Meanwhile, the court asked the BWSSB to assess, determine and pay compensation, if any, payable to the respective petitioners for actual damage, whether permanent or temporary, while rejecting the proposal to remove the drains from their private lands.

Published – 08 Jun 2026 21:38 IST