Karnataka HC upholds land acquisition to protect DRDO’s Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics project area

A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has upheld the acquisition of about 1.27 acres of additional land in Bennegahalli in Bengaluru for the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), bringing to an end a decades-old legal dispute.

The acquisition was set aside by a single judge in 2014 on the ground that landowners were not properly heard during the process of considering objections, but the Division Bench has now validated the acquisition, which was vital for the DRDO to protect the area around its sensitive Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR).

A Division Bench comprising Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan passed the order while allowing the appeals filed way back in 2015 by the Union government and the DRDO challenging the single judge’s order.

Chequered history

The Bench noted the long and chequered history of the acquisition, which began with a preliminary notification in 1987. After prolonged litigation and a compromise before the Supreme Court, a fresh notification was issued in 2005 after the earlier award lapsed.

The single judge, the Bench said, could have asked the land acquisition officer to hear afresh the objections of the landowners instead of quashing the acquisition process itself, as the land was acquired not for any ordinary purpose but for protecting the defence project area adjacent to these lands.

The Bench emphasised that the lands in question were surrounded by areas already handed over to the DRDO and fell within the protected area of the CAIR facility.

The requirement of a compact and protected area is a relevant consideration in a defence acquisition, the Bench said, while pointing out that quashing of acquisition for some deficiency in consideration of objections does not appear to be commensurate with the nature of the alleged procedural lapse when the land is acquired for a project of national importance.

Right of owner

“We are conscious that the rights of private landowners cannot be disregarded merely because the acquisition is for a public purpose. At the same time, the rights of the landowners have to be harmonised with the larger constitutional obligation of the State to protect the nation and to provide the infrastructure necessary for national defence and security,” the Bench observed.

Meanwhile, the Bench made it clear that the rights of the landowners, in respect of compensation, award, apportionment, or disbursement, remain protected under the applicable law.