BENGALURU: Following the state cabinet’s clearance of the Bengaluru Business Corridor (BBC), landowners have expressed worries over the lack of accountability. Noting that dealing with a corporate-like Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), instead of the BDA directly, could complicate compensation processes and reduce transparency, they demanded Monetary Policy review, fair market compensation, and stakeholder participation in the BBC equity model.
The state government’s recent notification on the BBC has triggered concerns among landowners affected by the project, which spans 2,560 acres and 26.75 guntas, with an estimated cost of Rs 27,000 crore. According to the landowners, the project will be executed through an SPV. Landowners now face dealing with a corporate-like entity rather than BDA directly, raising questions about accountability and transparency in compensation.
Funding will come from Rural Electrification Corporation Limited (REC), Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited (HUDCO), and Power Finance Corporation Limited (PFC) loans guaranteed by the state, though the government clarified that affected landowners will not directly benefit from this financial backing, the landowners added.
They further state that the land acquisition follows the BDA Act, 1976, and cites a 2022 Supreme Court ruling, exempting it from Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR), 2013, protection, leaving compensation under the outdated Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
While small landholders (up to 20 guntas) are offered full-cash compensation, others are given multiple options — cash, Transferable Development Rights (TDR), Floor Area Ratio (FAR), or commercial/residential sites — without clarity on valuation.
Notably, 35% of developed land is slated to be returned to landowners, though the allocation method remains unclear. The project’s design increase to 65m road width and creation of commercial sites, alongside Betterment Tax in a 500m impact zone, has been criticised by the landowners as prioritising commercial gain over fair rehabilitation.
The affected families argue that the SPV mechanism and commercialisation approach undermine constitutional rights.