Karnataka High Court issues directions to BMRCL to ensure access to remaining portion of properties acquired for metro project

The provisions declared unconstitutional should not apply to owners whose original access or frontage has been lost due to acquisition by BMRCL for the metro project, the court clarified. | Photo credit: File photo

The Karnataka High Court has issued a series of directions to the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) to assess at the planning stage itself how the acquisition of land for metro projects will affect the remaining portions of the acquired properties, instead of forcing the property owners to seek post-acquisition access remedies.

The court also declared unconstitutional certain provisions of BMRCL’s Way Leave Policy (WLP), which allows it to terminate leave at any time without notice, along with provisions excluding compensation, refunds or alternative access following such termination.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order while partially allowing a petition filed by M/s Ellis Fashion Exports Private Limited, whose commercial property on Bannerghatta Road remained closed after BMRCL acquired its frontage for Jayadeva Hospital Metro Station.

The court also imposed costs of ₹10,000 on BMRCL for forcing the petitioner to settle the litigation and at the same time ordered it to provide ingress and egress to the petitioner’s property permanently, free of charge and without agreement for a fixed period.

The court also declared unconstitutional “the charging provisions in clause 4 of the WLP for passages wider than 3.5 meters to inland properties and relating to electric lines and water or sewer pipes serving the remaining property… and the requirements for a 10-year prepayment and review or renewal of charges by reference to the prevailing guideline value”.

The provisions declared unconstitutional should not apply to owners whose original access or frontage has been lost due to acquisition by BMRCL for the metro project, the court clarified.

The court further directed that where the acquisition is likely to leave a property without effective access or essential services, BMRCL must inspect the site, consult the affected owner and consider a feasible arrangement before the existing access or services are interrupted. The assessment and proposed solution must be recorded in writing, the court said.

Get the remaining part

“If BMRCL considers that effective alternative access cannot reasonably be provided, it must communicate its reasons to the affected owner and, in accordance with law, consider whether acquisition of the remaining property or other legal remedy is appropriate,” the court said.

Owners whose property was left without access “must not be held indefinitely in limbo,” the court clarified.

Where utility routes are affected, the court said BMRCL must coordinate with the service providers and the affected owner to determine without delay a feasible arrangement for continuity or restoration of essential services. Administrative or contractual conditions must not be imposed in a way that prevents the practical provision of essential services.

The court directed the CEO of BMRCL to issue internal guidelines to ensure compliance with these guidelines, making it clear that the impact of the acquisition on the remaining portion of the property must be considered at the planning and implementation stage and that property owners’ requests for alternative access must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Published – 9 Nov 2026 19:45 IST