The court set aside the acquisition of 1,938 acres for a housing project near the elephant corridor
In a major setback for the state government, the Karnataka High Court has set aside the acquisition of 1,938 acres of land for the ambitious Suryanagar Residential Layout Project in Suryanagar Phase 4 (KHB) by holding that the land is part of the areas proposed for declaration as an Ecologically Sensitive Zone (ESBbuttingNP) on the Bannerghattaelephant National Park (ESBbuattting) side. corridors.
A division bench comprising Justice DK Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan passed the order on August 29 while setting aside the January 2025 verdict of a single judge.
The single judge allowed the acquisition of agricultural land subject to KHB obtaining necessary clearances from the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and set aside the acquisition of converted land, except for the purpose of road construction under the Comprehensive Development Plan.
“Not just for people…”
“Housing is not the only requirement for human existence. Ecology, wildlife, forests, waterways etc. are all equally important for human existence. We are therefore of the view that since the project itself falls within the BNP of the proposed 268.96 km2 ESZ, the entire project is misconceived and would have irreversible ecological, environmental and wildlife consequences.”
The Bench further said that the entire land acquisition proceedings “are nothing but an exercise without undertaking relevant considerations such as scientific study of environmental impact assessment, socio-ecological factors etc. as indicated by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).
KHB started acquisition proceedings in 2013 in five villages in Anekal taluk – Konasandra, Bommandahalli, Kadujakkanahalli, Indlavadi and Bagganadoddi. Intended as a residential development providing land for housing, the project was challenged by landowners who claimed the acquisition violated environmental regulations.
The Bench noted that the MEFCC had initially proposed an ESZ of 268.96 sq km around BNP in a draft notification issued in 2016. However, this was subsequently reduced to 168.84 sq km through a final notification issued in March 2020.
CEC report to SC
However, the Bench noted that the issue of ESZ is currently being discussed by the Supreme Court with the CEC in its January 2026 report submitted to the Supreme Court on a plea filed by one KB Belliappa challenging the reduction in the area of the ESZ and recommending restoration of the ESZ to 268.96 km2 as originally proposed.
Meanwhile, the MEFCC, in its affidavit filed before the Bench, said it was studying the CEC’s recommendations under the Act based on feedback from the state government.
In its report, the Bench noted that the CEC said the reduction of the ESZ has unduly excluded scientifically identified elephant corridors and ecologically significant areas that are vital for habitat contiguity and wildlife movement.
In addition, the CEC has flagged serious concerns regarding the Suryanagar housing project, pointing out that it would cause irreversible damage to the environment and severely affect the Karadikkal-Madeshwara elephant corridor, as the state forest department itself has already raised the possibility of increased human-wildlife conflict arising from the project.
The Bench also found that the KHB had not obtained mandatory clearances from the Standing Committee of the National Wildlife Board for the project. Instead, the KHB merely obtained a wildlife mitigation plan from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests after paying a fee of ₹1.5 million.
“Home Versus Home”
“It is a well-settled and abiding view that there is no such place as home. Yet the actions of the respondents force this court to confront a troubling question: Whether the same fundamental principle of a safe and undisturbed home should be denied to wildlife,” the Bench pointed out.
“The proposed Suryanagar project aims to provide affordable land for housing, but the same is done at the cost of displacing wildlife and depriving them of their natural habitat… The elephants in question, for whom these corridors are not just a passage but an essential part of their habitat and existence, cannot be treated as rightsless residents whose homes can be displaced at will,” the Bench observed.
Published – 31 Aug 2026 20:15 IST