BANGALORE: For the faculty and students of the University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), this is a time for both victory and defeat.
The Karnataka Biodiversity Board, in a recent decision, accorded the university’s GKVK campus the status of a biodiversity heritage site.
On the other hand, the construction of a road — connecting the Judicial Layout to the Bellary Road dissecting the GKVK campus — is on following a High Court order.
In a memorandum submitted on Tuesday, the Vice-Chancellor and the faculty of the UAS have told Governor H R Bhardwaj that the road to Judicial Layout — home to many High Court judges — is a danger to the biodiversity of the 1380-acre GKVK campus.
In a last-ditch attempt, the UAS has appealed to the Governor to intervene on its behalf.
The memorandum states that the “entire stretch” of the road passes through the area that has been declared as a biodiversity heritage site, and hence, is unlawful.
The heritage area comprises 167
hectares of the GKVK’s area and includes a scrub forest spread over 40 hectares, a park of 28 hectares, plantation and orchards in 99 hectares — all home to rare species of plants and
butterflies.
In the appeal to the Governor, the V-C has questioned the order of Justice Uluvadi Ramesh, and said the “case was dispensed without issuing the notice to the university from whom the land was taken away”.
The memorandum states that the BBMP wants the road to go through the university campus to “enhance the land value”.
“To save the campus, we felt it was our duty to bring the issue to the notice of Governor H R Bhardwaj. We have also filed an appeal in the High Court,” said UAS Vice-Chancellor K Narayana Gowda.
A senior advocate, who does wish to be identified, said the judgement passed by the high court is not in accordance with the Biodiversity Act.
According to the Section 37 of the Act, for any construction activity inside a heritage area, permission needs to be obtained from National Biodiversity Board, State Biodiversity Board and central government, he added.
He said the passing of an order when a related case is pending in the civil court is “gross impropriety” on the HC’s part.