The Karnataka government’s ambitious plan to forge India’s first AI City from the farmlands of Bidadi has run into a wall of protest, pitting a high-tech vision for a Greater Bengaluru Integrated Township (GBIT) against the stark realities of agricultural livelihood and contested land laws.
The farmers across 26 hamlets in the Byramangala and Kanchugaranahalli gram panchayats have been protesting for more than 200 days, ever since the government issued a preliminary notification early this year, in March.
The region is the bedrock of a thriving rural economy, heavily reliant on sericulture, milk, and coconut production.
Touted as a pet project of deputy chief minister D K Shivakumar, the GBIT is envisioned as a futuristic, 9,600-acre metropolis built on a “work–live–play” model, promising a zero-carbon, zero-waste, and zero-traffic ecosystem.
This new development, intended to become Bengaluru’s second Central Business District, carries a ₹20,000 crore price tag and an aggressive three-year rollout plan.
The government’s blueprint dedicates 2,000 acres for AI-driven industries and 1,100 acres for green zones, including the ecological revival of the nearby Byramangala Lake and Vrushabhavathi River.
In an official note, Shivakumar framed the project as a commitment to building the future with “inclusion, sustainability, and dignity.”
The Ground Reality
To the farmers, however, this vision feels more like an existential threat.
An expert at the Gandhi Krishi Vigyan Kendra (GKVK) in Bengaluru, confirmed to AIM seeking anonymity, that Ramanagara district remains one of Karnataka’s most fertile, famed for its silk and milk.
The expert warned that industrial expansion is creeping into Bidadi, endangering this agricultural backbone at a time when the land is already facing deep soil challenges from decades of imbalanced fertiliser use.
This agricultural bounty is precisely what farmers are fighting to protect.
Farmer and former Byramangala panchayat member Prakash HG stated, “We are not against development. We are asking for [a] social impact assessment.”
He claimed 90% of the identified area is agricultural land, home to about 10 lakh trees, two rivers, and a local economy that produces seven lakh litres of milk monthly.
Citing a survey by an agricultural scientist, Prakash pegged the region’s total annual agricultural income at ₹1,100 crore, asking pointedly, “Why this land?”
Farmer Chennakesava Reddy, who supports three families by cultivating silk, coconut, baby corn and ragi on his seven-acre land, accused the government of “unfair practices.”
He said that only a minority of the farmers have agreed to the acquisition, while the majority of them continue to resist the government’s decision.
“Even the minority have agreed to this because they have connections with the politicians and out of promises of kick backs,” he alleged, adding that he has been part of the protests.
Karnataka Pradesh Raita Samiti (KPRS) general secretary T Yashwanth echoed this sentiment, alleging the government is acting with undue urgency and ignoring alternatives like vertical infrastructure or barren lands.
“This is life support for farmers, and there will be no going back if natural resources are damaged,” he said.
The Legality
This conflict could escalate into a complex legal battle over the very process of acquisition.
According to a lawyer, Srihari, who practices land acquisition laws and is familiar with the issue, the government notification has been issued under the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (KUDA) Act, not the central Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act.
The 2013 Act, which repealed the colonial-era 1894 law, mandates a rigorous Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and includes provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement.
The KUDA Act, however, contains no such provision for an SIA, he said.
Srihari noted that to circumvent the central Act’s requirements, the Karnataka government previously passed an amendment allowing it to exempt certain projects from the SIA, a safeguard farmers are now demanding.
In 2019, the Karnataka government amended the central RFCTLARR Act, 2013 to create wide exemptions from the law’s core safeguards.
Through the Karnataka Amendment Act, 2019, the state inserted Section 10A allowing it to bypass key provisions such as the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and consent clauses for certain categories of projects, including industrial corridors, infrastructure, and public–private partnerships.
This effectively diluted the 2013 Act’s protections for landowners by permitting acquisition through simple government notification.
The lawyer’s contention is that the Bidadi AI City land acquisition, carried out under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (KUDA) Act, 1987, mirrors this dilution, since KUDA also lacks provisions for SIA or time-bound public consultation.
He argued that the state is using these legal loopholes and “urgency” clauses to evade the due process and social assessments mandated under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
Furthermore, the KUDA Act lacks the strict timelines of the central law, which mandates a one-year limit between preliminary and final notifications, and another year from notification to award, leaving farmers in a state of protracted uncertainty.
Government’s Response
The state government, in response, has sought to frame the backlash as a predictable and standard part of large-scale development.
During a press briefing, Karnataka IT minister Priyank Kharge dismissed the idea that the situation was unique, stating, “It’s not the first time we are doing an industrial city, right?”
He pointed to Karnataka’s precedent of establishing over 30 special economic zones, as well as its aerospace park and Electronic City, noting all were built on former farmland.
He emphasised that these past acquisitions were resolved through “mutually agreeable terms.”
Kharge equated the current farmer protests with the common acquisition hurdles faced when building highways or announcing other industrial assets.
“What is new in this?” he remarked.
While normalising the conflict as an expected problem, he offered an assurance.
“For us, the farmers also are important,” Kharge said, adding that the government is not saying that it will not listen to them.
This long-running dispute has historical roots, as the Janata Dal (Secular) first proposed a township in 2006, but that plan never reached the preliminary notification stage, which is the formal government step that initiated the current conflict and the ensuing protests this year.
The Karnataka government has also sanctioned 6.17 acres of land in Hesaraghatta for the establishment of a Quantum City (QCity), in a bid to position Bengaluru as the “quantum capital of India”
(With inputs from Supreeth Koundinya)
The post Bidadi’s AI City Dream Meets Rural Resistance appeared first on Analytics India Magazine.
