Karnataka high court
Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has upheld the final notification for the acquisition of around 20 acres around Central Prison at Parappana Agrahara for its expansion, observing that it serves a bona fide public purpose and cannot be set aside merely on account of hyper-technicalities. A division bench comprising Justices DK Singh and H Shanthi Bhushan also set aside the order passed by a single bench on May 2, 2025. The single bench had quashed the final notification dated Aug 7, 2013, by partly allowing the petitions filed by G Shashikiran and other landowners who owned 19 acres 18 guntas at Naganathapura.
A direction was also issued by the single bench to the state govt to have a fresh look at the matter after considering the report of the special land acquisition officer as well as the version of the additional director general of police and inspector general of prisons. The govt had appealed against the order, contending that the notified land is required for a buffer zone for the prison.
It does not confer an unqualified right to resist every acquisition undertaken in accordance with law,” the division bench said in its order passed on Oct 28. You Can Also Check: Gold Rate in Bengaluru | Silver Rate in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru | Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Petrol Price in Bengaluru | Diesel Price in Bengaluru | CNG Price in Bengaluru | LPG Price in Bengaluru Stay updated with the latest Bengaluru news. On the other hand, the landowners had argued that the special land acquisition officer had spoken against the acquisition, suggesting that it was not possible to keep a buffer area on all sides of the prison complex. However, the division bench opined that the public purpose underlying the proposed acquisition warrants due weight in determining the competing claims of public and private interest. “The establishment and expansion of prison infrastructure constitute an important responsibility of the state, extending beyond the mere provision of accommodation for inmates to encompass custodial security, effective prison administration, segregation of inmates, adequate supporting facilities and the maintenance of a secure environment. The requirement of additional land for these purposes must be assessed in the context of the overall functional requirements of the institution and its long-term operational needs, rather than being confined to the existing structures within the prison premises,” the bench noted. “The objections of the landowners, though entitled to fair and objective consideration, cannot be elevated into an absolute right to prevent an acquisition that is otherwise justified by the legitimate requirements of prison administration and public safety. The right to property under Article 300A of Constitution of India protects the individual against deprivation except by authority of law. Download the TOI App.