In a major setback to the State government, the High Court of Karnataka has quashed the acquisition of 1,938 acres of land for the Karnataka Housing Board’s (KHB) ambitious Suryanagar 4th phase residential layout project, by holding that the land is part of areas proposed to be declared as eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) of the Bannerghatta National Park (BNP) besides abutting elephant corridors.A Division Bench comprising Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan passed the order on August 29 while setting aside a single judge’s January 2025 verdict.The single judge had allowed the acquisition of agricultural land on the condition that the KHB should obtain necessary clearances from the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, (MoEFCC), and had quashed the acquisition of converted land, except for the purpose of forming roads as per the Comprehensive Development Plan.“Not only for human...”“Housing is not the only requirement for human existence. Ecology, wildlife, forest, water streams etc., all are equally important for human existence. We are, therefore, of the view that since the project in question itself falls within the BNP’s proposed ESZ of 268.96 sq. km., the whole project is misconceived and would have irreversible ecological, environmental and wildlife related consequences,” the Bench observed.The Bench further said that the entire land acquisition proceedings “are nothing but an exercise without undertaking the relevant considerations such as, scientific study of environment impact assessment, socio-ecological factors etc., as flagged by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).”The KHB initiated acquisition proceedings in 2013 across five villages in Anekal taluk — Konasandra, Bommandahalli, Kadujakkanahalli, Indlavadi, and Bagganadoddi. The project, envisioned as a residential layout to provide housing plots, was challenged by landowners who argued that the acquisition violated environmental regulations.The Bench noted that the MoEFCC initially proposed an ESZ of 268.96 sq. km around BNP in a draft notification issued in 2016. However, this was subsequently reduced to 168.84 sq. km through a final notification issued in March 2020.CEC report to SCHowever, the Bench noted that the issue of ESZ is currently before the Supreme Court, with the CEC, in its January 2026 report submitted to the Supreme Court on a plea filed by one K.B. Belliappa challenging reduction in ESZ area, recommending restoration of the ESZ to 268.96 sq. km as originally proposed.Meanwhile, the MoEFCC, in its affidavit filed before the Bench, said that it is studying the CEC’s recommendation as per the law by taking feedback from the State government.In its report, the Bench noted the CEC had stated that reduction in ESZ unjustifiably excluded scientifically identified elephant corridors and ecologically significant patches that are vital for habitat contiguity and wildlife movement.Additionally, the CEC flagged serious concerns regarding the Suryanagar housing project, while pointing out that it would cause irreversible environmental damage and would seriously affect the Karadikkal-Madeshwara elephant corridor, as the State Forest Department itself has already flagged the likelihood of increased human-wildlife conflict arising from this project.Also, the Bench found that the KHB had failed to obtain mandatory clearances from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife for the project. Instead, the KHB had only obtained a Wildlife Impact Mitigation Plan from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests upon payment of a fee of ₹1.5 crore.“Home vs. Home”“It is a settled and enduring sentiment that there is no place like home. Yet, the actions of the respondents compel this court to confront a disquieting question: Whether the same fundamental principle of a secure and undisturbed home is to be denied to wildlife,” the Bench pointed out“The proposed Suryanagar project aims to give affordable housing plots, but the same is done at the cost of displacing wildlife and depriving them of their natural habitat... The elephants in question, for whom these corridors constitute not merely a passage but an essential part of their natural habitat and existence, cannot be treated as occupants without rights whose homes may be displaced at will,” the Bench observed.