The Peripheral Ring Road project, once announced as a development that could benefit farmers, has, over time, turned into a burden. In a recent article, we examined how the project may lead to the displacement of farmers. The project, delayed for almost two decades and now rebranded as the Bengaluru Business Corridor, has caused farmers and landowners considerable suffering. Unable to sell or mortgage their lands, some landowners face significant financial distress.
With the unavailability of affordable and fertile lands, farmers will now be forced to migrate. However, the concerns of the farmers and landowners are pressing: they believe that the compensation being offered is inadequate and not according to legal standards.
Unfair compensation
The core issue with the acquisition, farmers say, is that the compensation is neither fair nor in line with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013. In February 2022, the Government of Karnataka directed that compensation for the project be determined in accordance with the 2013 Act.
As per the 2013 Act, the compensation should be one to two times the guidance value plus solatium amount, which is 100% of the land value. Additionally, the act mandates compensation for standing crops, trees or any assets attached to the land. Farmers allege that the BDA is quoting compensations based on the British colonial law, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
| 1894 Act | 2013 Act |
| Market value of the land and damages caused during possession | One to two times the land value for rural areas and one times the land value for urban areas, plus solatium, plus the value of assets attached to the land. |
| No mention of solatium | Solatium amounting to 100% of the land value, multiplied by one or two times depending on whether the land is classified as urban or rural. |
| Award to be made within two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceeding for the acquisition of the land shall lapse | Award to be made within 12 months from the date of publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse |
After the notification was issued, Gopal Reddy, a farmer from Sulikunte, invested in polyhouse structures on his flower farm. Under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, such investments are treated as assets attached to the land and must be factored into the compensation. However, Gopal, whose land is notified for acquisition, told Citizen Matters that the BDA has refused to take these structures into account.
This is in stark contrast to payouts in another project and reveals glaring inconsistencies across government agencies. In Kodathi village, just two kilometres away from Sulikunte, the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) has acquired land for the suburban railway project. Farmers who surrendered their land received compensation of more than ₹40 crores per acre in February 2025. “While KIADB values the land at such high rates, it is unfair that the BDA expects us to comply with rates as low as ₹5 crores 55 lakhs per acre,” says Gopal.
Read more: Bengaluru’s Peripheral Ring Road: Two decades on, who really benefits?
Deliberate reduction of guidance values
The Department of Stamps and Registration sets the guidance value for lands across the state. The guidance values were last revised in October 2023. Subsequently, in March 2024, following a corrigendum gazette issued with reference to BDA, the department notified changes to guidance values for several villages and survey numbers that fall within the notified Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) alignment.
| Village name | Guidance value | Negotiated compensation amount(Crores per acre in ₹)* | |
| As per October 2023(Crores per acre in ₹) | As per March 2024 – BDA Corrigendum Gazette(Crores per acre in ₹) | ||
| Gunjuru | 4.5 | 2.5 | 5 |
| Khane Kandaya | 3.32 | 2.15 | 4.3 |
| Kodathi | 4.75 | 1.8 | 5.4 |
| Kachamaranahalli | 3.5 | 1.8 | 5.4 |
| Sulikunte | 4 | 1.85 | 5.55 |
| Sorahunase | 4 | 1.85 | 3.7 |
| Varthur | 6 | 2.25 | 4.5 |
| Vallepura | 3 | 1.55 | 4.65 |
| *The guidance values are specific to survey numbers that fall along the PRR alignment. The negotiated amount quoted by BDA can be found on the Bengaluru Business Corridor website. | |||
“Of Karnataka’s 75,000 villages, the guidance value has been reduced only in 65 villages, and all of them fall along the PRR alignment,” alleges Krishna Ramesh, another farmer. “This shows that the cuts were made specifically to lower compensation payouts.”
In 2016, the BDA wrote to the Stamp and Registration Department stating that the revised 2014 guidance value would require ₹8,100 crore in compensation, an unaffordable amount. The BDA requested that the guidance value for the 67 villages not be revised further. “This shows the BDA wants to acquire land without offering fair compensation,” says Jagadish Reddy, a landowner from Varthur village facing acquisition.
Notably, the March 2024 revision of guidance values slashed rates to less than half of what had been announced just months earlier in October 2023, further deepening farmers’ concerns over deliberate undervaluation. “Considering the raised land values in other areas, with the little compensation that BDA is quoting, we can’t even buy five guntas of land,” says Krishna.
Atheeq, chairperson of Bengaluru Business Corridor, said that the planning authority is aware that the guidance value has not been revised for some time. “That is why we had the TDR option, and people can opt for that. People are coming forward to get compensation through TDR,” he told Citizen Matters.
The five compensation options
BDA announced five different compensation options: cash payouts, developed residential plots in Dr K Shivarama Karanth Layout or layouts around PRR 1, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) compensation, Transferable Development Rights (TDR)/Development Rights Certificate (DRC) or developed commercial plots under a 65:35 ratio (that is 8,385 square feet of developed plot per acre of land lost). However, the farmers reject all the options.
Atheeq claims 450 to 500 farmers have given their consent. “Approximately 15% to 20% of the land owners have given consent, and the number is growing every day.”
“Shivarama Karanth Layout is on the other side of the city—why should I accept a developed plot so far away?” Krishna asks. The service road is designed to be nine metres on each side with two lanes of which one will be a cycling lane. “There would be no space for parking, making the so-called developed plots under the 65:35 ratio impractical and of little real benefit,” Gopal said.
Read more: Ringfencing Bengaluru: STRR gains momentum while PRR struggles to get takers
Not just a land, a livelihood for many
In Gopal’s farm, more than 10 labourers are employed throughout the year. “If the land goes, they will lose their livelihood,” he says. “How will BDA compensate for these losses?”
The demands of the landowners differ. Jagdish says he is not against the project. “The project is crucial to ease the city’s traffic. With fair compensation, I am ready to give my land,” he adds.
For Krishna, the project’s design needs a rethink. “The project was planned based on the city’s requirements in 2020. Now, it needs to be redesigned.”
Gopal, however, says he is not ready to let go of his farmland, adding that such fertile land should not be given up.
Atheeq notes that the project will create access to many pieces of land which are not opened up right now, connecting important places. “Around 70% of the landowners will only be losing parts of their land, and the remaining parts of the land would become more valuable, opening up opportunities,” he said.
One concern remains: compensation should follow the 2013 RFCTLARR Act. A recent news report noted, “A senior official said those who fail to submit consent letters within the stipulated period will be compensated under the older act.” However, Atheeq clarified that compensation is based on the 2013 Act, and if landowners do not consent, the amount will be deposited in court for them to claim—unless the government revises the compensation values.