About 560 acres of land in Hulikunte village in Bengaluru Rural were notified by the KIADB for a logistics park. Around 2,000 acres were acquired for the KWIN city project in the same area.
Credit: DH Photo/Pushkar V
Coconut and areca nut groves, flower gardens, vegetable farms and polyhouses — about 560 acres of fertile agricultural land nestled in Hulikunte village in Doddaballapura taluk, Bengaluru Rural district, was notified in 2021 by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), for a logistics park.
The village supplies 4,000 litres of milk every day, along with a variety of vegetables, to supermarkets in Bengaluru. Many agricultural families might lose their land in Hulikunte, following the notification. Among them is Venkatesh and his family — their six acres of land is under threat of acquisition by the KIADB — leaving their livelihoods at stake.
When the village got the first notice in 2021, the villagers protested and said they would not part with the land. Meanwhile, the KIADB acquired another 2,000 acres of land on the other side of the village that same year, for the ambitious Knowledge, Wellbeing, and Innovation City (KWIN City) project planned between Dobbspet and Doddaballapura along the Satellite Town Ring Road (STRR).
Villagers fear that Hulikunte is set to lose its existence, and its hyperlocal culture will be erased.
Many villages have already been acquired on this stretch adjoining STRR to form Dobbspet, Sompura, and Obalapura industrial estates. According to KIADB rules, land cannot be bought or sold once notified. The rules also make it illegal to grow farm produce on the land. However, the KIADB does not issue compensation before the final notification.
This leads to a situation where farmers lose the right to work on their own farms, even as their future looks bleak. In this way, ever-growing Bengaluru’s ambitious plans to create more jobs take a toll on the lives and livelihoods of people on the outskirts. There are problems in every step of the process, from land acquisition to awarding compensation. Most of the time, landowners have no say in the matter.
‘Collusion with real estate interests’
“They (KIADB) looked at 50-year-old gramathana maps and identified the lands, while in reality, the village has expanded much beyond their maps,” says Venkatesh. He adds that the KIADB decided to leave a margin of only 100 metres surrounding the residential area, while many homes exist and farming activities take place much beyond this area.
Some landowners accuse the KIADB of leaking the land details to be notified to benefit political and bureaucratic interests. They say that before the KIADB identified their lands for acquisition, they sold the land to each other for the guidance value of the land ranging between Rs 10 to 15 lakh per acre.
In some villages, farmers do not want to sell the land; in other areas, they just wait for a better price.
“A few years ago, external players suddenly came in with offers of up to Rs 35 to 40 lakh per acre and bought land en masse. In the nearby Goragatta village, about 200 acres were acquired in this way by external players, who paid Rs 35 lakh per acre. The guidance value was Rs 15 lakh per acre, but the final value was fixed at Rs 1.15 crore after the transactions,” explains Venkatesh.
The KIADB notified the lands later, raising suspicions that acquisition details were allegedly leaked to real estate developers. “As a result, the original land owner gets a pittance,” explains Keertish, a diploma holder who grows flowers in Hulikunte.
Locals allege that out of 2,000 acres acquired for KWIN City, 400 acres belonged to just two entities or persons who bought the properties just before the notification. DH could not independently verify this claim.
Such issues cannot be easily addressed by legal recourse. “If they can prove that information was leaked beforehand, villagers can go to court with a public interest litigation or file civil suits to nullify the sale deeds,” says Ajay Nandalike, a Bengaluru-based lawyer well-versed in KIADB matters. However, he says that it is difficult to establish such leaks.
Denotification scams are another way through which vested interests step in. Under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (KIAD Act), the state government can notify any area as an industrial area. The Act also empowers KIADB to denotify any area at any time.
“KIADB issues a preliminary notification under 28/1 of the Act. Then, before it issues the final notification, external players buy the notified land from farmers through threats or tricking them into thinking they will not get a better price later. Such scams are common,” says Nandalike.
It may be recalled that many chief ministers have been charged in denotification scams.
Problems in consultation, compensation
“Officials do not conduct meetings here in the village. They serve notices to batches of 50 people and ask us to go to the city offices. They do not even show us the minutes of meetings later,” says Venkatesh.
Officials say consultation meetings are conducted according to KIADB rules. The KIAD Act was amended in 2022. It does not mention consultation; it only talks about compensation.
Hulikunte villagers say the compensation formula is problematic. Three types of lands have been identified in the village — the highway-side properties valued at Rs 42 lakh, the roadside ones at Rs 40 lakh and the interior ones at Rs 35 lakh per acre.
When acquiring land, the KIADB issues the preliminary notification, and then serves notice to farmers under 28/2. The farmers can file objections following this if their land has already been converted and developed, or if houses have already been built on the land. The final call, however, lies with the KIADB, says Nandalike.
Under the KIAD Act, there are three types of compensation. Firstly, under Section 29(2), the deputy commissioner fixes an amount per acre as a consent award or compensation. If the amount is agreeable to the farmer, they can sign an agreement and indemnity bond, after which the compensation will be paid.
Under the second type of compensation, the special land acquisition officer fixes the compensation as a special award. When this happens, the KIADB is supposed to pay as per the new Land Acquisition Act passed in April 2022. If the farmer feels the amount fixed is low, they can seek an increase (enhancement) of the compensation in the district court.
However, this method does not work in cases where the guideline value is very low, because once the KIADB takes over, the price becomes higher, but the farmer gets next to nothing.
To remedy this, the KIADB came up with a third method of compensation. The Board gives back a quarter of the developed industrial plot to the landowner, who can sell it for a much better price. This comes to 10,326 sqft per acre of land given up.
In this type of compensation, the sale deed is in the farmer’s name. Also, the KIADB has a waiting period before it sells a leased plot it owns to an industry. But farmers can sell their plots immediately for a price six to seven times higher, build on them, or lease them out. This is a win-win for both farmers and industries.
When protests go in vain
In Channarayapatna, Devanahalli taluk, forceful land acquisition has been a matter that farmers have been protesting against for the past two years.
“There are very few protections for farmers’ interests. The amendments to the 2013 Act and the Land Reforms Act in 2020 that enabled non-agriculturalists to purchase agricultural land have left us vulnerable. It seems we are returning to a feudal system, where people with money can keep accumulating land. The government is operating with a similar mindset,” says Ramesh Cheemachanahalli, a farmer in Channarayapatna whose land has been notified for the Haralur Industrial Area project.
Most farmers give up the fight to retain their lands for various reasons. Some find it difficult to continue and make a profit from agriculture, while others dream of making a better life with the money they get.
One such farmer from the Doddabelavangala area in Bengaluru Rural, whose land has already been acquired, has been waiting for compensation for two years. Requesting anonymity, he says that opposition from villagers did not stop the acquisition, and the KIADB has finalised the compensation amount. His land has been valued at Rs 1.45 crore per acre.
“We cannot do anything in front of powerful people. We have to think of alternative livelihoods now,” he adds.
Losing land to BDA
In 2003, when the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) served farmers in Bengaluru East a notice for land acquisition, the rehabilitation package — promising 40 per cent of the developed land in exchange — seemed appealing.
Twenty-odd years later, the land that once hosted a variety of horticultural produce has been parcelled out into sites and is called Arkavathy Layout. However, several former landowners still await compensation, due to irregularities in the land development process.
One landowner, Kumar (name changed), explains several missteps in the land distribution process. “While most farmers who gave up land were allotted developed land in the same or adjoining areas, as per the BDA’s acquiescence, my land was used specifically for a civil servant layout,” Kumar says.
After waiting more than a decade, Kumar finally settled for alternative land as compensation in another location. “However, just at the end of the registration process, the BDA denotified the allotted property, and I have to start all over again,” he says. Kumar adds that the physical and mental toll that the process has taken is beyond measure.
M Ramesh, who lost about 39 guntas in North Bengaluru’s Ramagondanahalli for the Dr K Shivaram Karanth Layout, says the government does not study the impact of such projects on landowners.
“The acquisition of around 3,500 acres of land has left many villagers unemployed, severing the livelihoods of families who relied solely on agriculture,” he says. He says the farmers are yet to get compensatory sites, even after three years of losing possession of their lands.
While industries and infrastructure are necessary for the economy, the state often fails to strike a balance between agriculture, livelihoods and development. This is a path of no return, which stands to put food security in peril. Will the government take notice and build a balanced approach? Only time will tell, though current approaches do not seem to be heading in that direction.
(With inputs from Varsha Gowda in Bengaluru)