‘Only on paper’: Why Karnataka HC wants 30-year-old Bengaluru-Mysuru Infra Corridor project scrapped, started afresh

The BMIC was originally conceived in 1995 under the state government headed by H D Deve Gowda, envisioning a four-lane expressway between Mysuru and Bengaluru, which could be expanded to six lanes, and five satellite townships to deal with the future growth of Bengaluru. (File Photo)

The Karnataka High Court has made an observation to the effect that the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) has remained only on paper, suggesting that action should be taken to initiate a fresh project while discarding the old one.

The observations were made in the context of an order passed by a division bench of Justices D K Singh and Venkatesh Naik on Friday.

In the case being heard, the petitioner owned approximately 7.5 acres of land which had come under acquisition proceedings for the BMIC – with the final notification issued in 2003 – and had approached the high court in 2010 seeking eight land sites as compensation which had allegedly been promised. The plea was dismissed by the bench, which noted that the petitioner had already accepted the compensation amount at the offered rate.

While passing the order, the bench also extensively examined the background of the BMIC, making several observations. On the original project’s specifications, the bench remarked, “The ambitious…project of such a public interest to decongest the city and to develop new satellite township has remained only on papers. Not even a single township has been developed in the last 35 years…This is a classic example of the non-commitment to the public planning by the people in power for various reasons, which may be large scale corruption, bureaucratic trapping and litigation.”

The high court also noted that the project had become a source of extensive litigation with over 2,000 cases related to it currently pending, while lamenting, “This project, instead of de-clogging and decongesting the city…has clogged and congested the high court and other courts.”

Stating that the issue should be looked into again, the bench said, “No purpose would be served for keeping the project alive when, in more than 25 years, only one kilometre has been constructed. It would be in the interest of the city, citizens, environment and the future, to re-look at the project and take appropriate action for fresh and new project discarding the old one.”

Reiterating this point at the end of its order, the bench observed that a “huge land bank” was in the hands of the project proponents with tolls being collected via peripheral roads and toll plazas, concluding, “The expressway has not yet been constructed and there is no sign of it being constructed in future. Therefore, we direct the State Government to re-look the project and take appropriate steps in this regard.”