BENGALURU: The High Court of Karnataka on Saturday asked the state government if it had received a proposal to cut trees inside Lalbagh Botanical Gardens for the Tunnel Road project.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha sought the government’s response and issued notice to all respondents after hearing a public interest litigation filed by actor Prakash Belawadi and another individual.
Belawadi’s counsel alleged that 6.5 acres of land has been demarcated inside Lalbagh for the tunnel project. Restrictions have been imposed on the entry and exit of people. Trees are likely to be axed in violation of the Karnataka Parks (Preservation) Act, 1975. Moreover, the project may pose a threat to the Lalbagh rock, which has been declared as a national geological monument, he said.
Then, the court asked the government advocate, “Are you planning to cut any trees? Make sure there is no damage to trees. Take instructions if there is a proposal to cut trees inside Lalbagh.”
Seeking to quash the government order pertaining to the project, the petitioner alleged that the North-South Tunnel Road Project (Hebbal to Silk Board) was illegally pursued by the government through Bengaluru Smart Infrastructure Limited (B-SMILE) at an estimated cost of Rs 19,000 crore without any application of mind, without statutory approval, and in violation of the constitutional mandate.
Stating that the project is in violation of provisions under the Bengaluru Metropolitan Land Transport Authority Act (BMLTA), 2022, and environmental laws, the petitioner alleged that the officials of the state government, Greater Bengaluru Authority and B-SMILE inspected Lalbagh in the first week of October, marked certain areas for acquisition and to cut trees and start land excavation work.
The project, if implemented, will permanently alter aquifer flow patterns, affecting Bengaluru’s water security. No environmental impact assessment has been done, the petitioner alleged.
Demanding that the approvals given to the project be quashed, the petitioner urged the court to restrain the process to invite tenders.
