For two decades, farmers of Devarabeesanahalli and Kariyammana Agrahara villages of Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, opposed the land acquisition for a proposed Information Technology (IT) park project within Bengaluru’s eastern IT corridor near Bellandur and the Outer Ring Road.
The project, promoted by Royal Fragrances Private Limited (RFPL), involved the acquisition of nearly 29 acres and 7.5 guntas of land through the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) under Bengaluru’s early 2000s industrial expansion plans. In February 2026, the Karnataka High Court quashed the acquisition of 36 guntas of this land, citing serious irregularities in the acquisition process.
Royal Fragrances Private Limited, despite lacking an Information Technology background, applied to Karnataka Udyog Mitra on 30 August 2001, seeking 12 acres of land to develop an IT park in Devarabeesanahalli and Kariyammana Agrahara villages. Although the application was allegedly incomplete and lacked technical details, approvals were granted within 18 days for a much larger allotment of 29 acres and 7.5 guntas. The acquisition process under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, began with a preliminary notification on 10 December 2001, and was finalised through a final notification dated 23 February 2004, following which KIADB proceeded swiftly with the acquisition.
The acquisition affected local farming families, who questioned the legitimacy of the proposed IT project after allegations emerged that the beneficiary company lacked genuine IT credentials and was reportedly linked to gutka manufacturing activities. The court noted that villagers protested the acquisition for nearly two over fears of livelihood loss and misuse of industrial development laws for private interests.
On 18 March 2009, the Karnataka government issued orders denotifying 36 guntas of land in Devarabeesanahalli village, followed by directions to KIADB on 23 May 2009 to implement the order. RFPL challenged the denotification through W.P. No. 17211/2009, arguing that the land had already been legally acquired for the proposed IT park. In March 2013, a single bench ruled in favour of the company. However, landowner Patel Jetalal Ramaji and his family appealed the decision. In its 27 February 2026 judgment, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising Justices D K Singh and Tara Vitasta Ganju quashed the acquisition, describing it as a “daylight dacoity” on farmers’ land marked by arbitrariness, illegality, and misuse of state machinery.
While the ruling specifically restored the 36 guntas parcel belonging to Patel Jetalal Ramaji’s family, the larger acquisition later underwent multiple denotifications, re-allotments, consent arrangements, and writ petitions. Court records indicate that around 2 acres 17 guntas and another 20 guntas in Survey No. 11/2 were separately denotified, while some portions were proposed for allotment to entities such as Sai Srushti Infra Tech and R R Platina Infra. As a result, the original IT park acquisition fragmented into multiple disputed parcels, exposing systemic irregularities in the acquisition and redistribution of agricultural land under the guise of industrial development.
The court further examined records relating to nearly 150 acres of land acquired and allotted in Devarabeesanahalli and Kariyammana Agrahara villages involving multiple companies, including Royal Fragrances Private Limited, Vikas Telecom, Supreme Build Cap, Premel Project, and Adarsha Prime Project. Referring to a 2004 letter by the Chief Executive Officer of KIADB to the Principal Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries, the court noted that these entities lacked prior expertise in the proposed industries and that some companies shared common directors, raising concerns regarding coordinated misuse of industrial land acquisition mechanisms in the area.
Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Complaint against procedural violations
Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Demand to quash land acquisition;
Region Classification
Urban
Type of Land
Private
N/A
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
Status of Project
Project scrapped
Original Project Deadline
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Yes
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
Agricultural land, Residential area
Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict
Yes
Source/Reference
Total investment involved (in Crores):
₹
Type of investment:
Year of Estimation
Has the Conflict Ended?
Yes
When did it end?
February 2026
Why did the conflict end?
The Karnataka High Court quashed the acquisition of 36 gunthas in February 2026, citing arbitrariness, illegality, and misuse of state machinery in the land acquisition process.
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Land Acquisition Laws
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
Yes
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Controversial land acquisition by the government
Legal Status:
In Court
Status of Case In Court
Disposed
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Karnataka High Court
Case Number
Writ Petition No. 17539 of 2004 (LA-KIADB), Writ Petition No. 30979 of 2004 (LA-KIADB) and Writ Petition No. 17211 of 2009 (LA-KIADB)
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Reported Details of the Violation:
Date of Violation
Location of Violation
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB)
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB)
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
No
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Royal Fragrances Private Limited (RFPL)
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
No
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
Local farming families and landowners of Devarabeesanahalli and Kariyammana Agrahara
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
Asmita Sutar is an Architect and Urban Planner passionate about shaping sustainable communities through research and grassroots engagement. She also serves as an Assistant Professor in Urban and Regional Planning, bringing academic insight to her multidisciplinaryapproach.
As a State Researcher from Karnataka, Asmita investigates land and planning issues through the lenses of equity, governance, and community rights, with a focus on bridging the gap between policy and lived realities in India’s urban and rural landscapes.
