Karnataka High Court issues guidelines to BMRCL for ensuring access to remaining portion of properties acquired for metro project

The provisions declared as unconstitutional should not be applied to owners whose original access or frontage has been lost because of the BMRCL’s acquisition for the metro project, the court clarified.

The Karnataka High Court has issued a series of directions to the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) to assess, at the planning stage itself, how land acquisition for metro projects will affect the remaining portions of the acquired properties instead of forcing property owners to seek remedies for access after acquisition.

The court has also declared as unconstitutional certain provisions of the BMRCL’s Way Leave Policy (WLP) that permits it to discontinue a way-leave facility at any time without notice, together with provisions excluding compensation, refund or alternative access upon such discontinuance.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order while partly allowing a petition filed by M/s Ellis Fashion Exports Private Limited, whose commercial property on Bannerghatta Road was left landlocked after the BMRCL acquired its road-facing frontage for the Jayadeva Hospital Metro Station.

The court has also imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on the BMRCL for compelling the petitioner to opt for litigation while directing it to provide on a permanent basis, free of cost and without an agreement for a fixed term, the ingress and egress to the petitioner’s property.

Also, the court has declared as unconstitutional “the charging provisions in clause 4 of WLP for passages wider than 3.5 metres to landlocked properties, and relating to electricity lines and water or sewage pipelines serving the remaining property... and the requirements for 10 years’ upfront payment and revision or renewal of charges by reference to prevailing guidance value”.

The provisions declared as unconstitutional should not be applied to owners whose original access or frontage has been lost because of the BMRCL’s acquisition for the metro project, the court clarified.

Further, the court directed that where acquisition is likely to leave the property without effective access or essential services, the BMRCL must inspect the site, consult the affected owner, and consider a workable arrangement before the existing access or services are disrupted. The assessment and proposed solution must be recorded in writing, the court said.

“If the BMRCL considers that effective replacement access cannot reasonably be provided, it must communicate its reasons to the affected owner and consider, in accordance with law, whether acquisition of the remaining property or another lawful solution is appropriate,” the court said.

The owners whose property has been left without access “should not be kept indefinitely in uncertainty”, the court clarified.

Where utility routes are affected, the court said, the BMRCL must coordinate with service providers and the affected owner to identify a workable arrangement for continuity or restoration of essential services without delay. Administrative or contractual conditions shall not be imposed in a manner that defeats the practical provision of essential services.

The court directed the BMRCL’s managing director to issue internal instructions to ensure compliance with these directions, while making it clear that the impact of acquisition for the remaining portion of the property must be considered at the planning and implementation stages, and that requests for replacement access by property owners must receive individual consideration.