The Greater Bengaluru Development Authority (GBDA) says more than 90% of farmers in three villages near Bidadi agreed to land acquisition for the Greater Bengaluru Integrated Township (GBIT). Local farmers aren't buying it, claiming data manipulation .
Last month, GBDA's final notification aimed to acquire 519 acres in Kempayyanapalya, Mandalahalli, and Vaderahalli. Whole project needs 9,640 acres; 7,200 as farmland. In Kempayyanapalya, 357 of 367 landowners supposedly agreed . Mandalahalli had 23 of 26 on board, while Vaderahalli saw 53 of 63.
But farmers like Nagaraju M.R . from Mandalahalli slam these numbers. He argues the figures are “manipulated,” noting his family’s 36 acres are not up for grabs. “Who are these 23 landowners?” he asks,highlighting that more than 60% of the land belongs to seven holdouts .
Yashavantha T.,State general secretary of Karnataka Prantha Raitha Sangha (KPRS), backs this, accusing GBDA of undermining protestors. He claims compensation cheques were handed out selectively through political channels to weaken resistance .
On the other hand,a senior GBDA official defends their position,saying many consenting farmers are quiet due to protests. “They’ve approached us,” the official insists,noting landowners want faster compensation. Local MLA H.C. Balakrishna met landowners recently, stressing urgency for payment.
“People want quick compensation to buy farmland elsewhere,” the official explains,admitting the process is slow and cumbersome .
As of Saturday,GBDA says ₹150 crore in compensation is paid. Of landowners,92 took cash, 25 chose land, and 10 mixed both. GBDA also compensates crops and trees .
Shanthamma and Venkatesh,with 3.20 acres,will get ₹1.26 crore just for crops. A GBDA official praised their farming,saying Horticulture Department sees strong crop potential .
While compensation rolls out, GBDA submitted draft final notification for three more villages. Government approval expected soon,but consent disputes cast doubt on project’s legitimacy and farmer future.
No comprehensive data from farmers or GBDA on those not consenting. GBDA's figures rely on verbal agreements,not documented consent, muddying waters further.
