The High Court of Karnataka has upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) Act, 1964, which enables the BWSSB to place and maintain sewer over, under, along or across any immovable property, including private ones, without acquisition of the land.
Referring to Section 39 (power to lay mains), 76 (buildings and private streets not to be erected or constructed over sewers without permission) and 77 (rights of user of property for sewers), the court said that these “provisions constitute a constitutionally valid statutory framework creating a limited statutory right of user, accompanied by procedural and compensatory safeguards”.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order while partly allowing the petitions filed by landowners, T.N. Chandrashekar Gowda, Jethronica and others, who had challenged the use of their lands for laying sewer by the BWSSB.
Pointing out that the provisions of the Act requires the BWSSB to cause as little damage as possible and mandates full compensation for damage caused, the court said that “the statutory scheme, therefore, does not contemplate unrestricted occupation or appropriation of land...”
“If acquisition proceedings were made mandatory every time a sewer line crossed private land, the practical consequence would be fragmentation of infrastructure projects and substantial impairment of the implementation of essential civic works,” the court observed.
However, the court made it clear the constitutional validity of these provisions are sustained on the understanding that safeguards provided in the Act are applied meaningfully and that compensation remains real and responsive to the actual prejudice suffered by affected landowners.
The court clarified that the statutory right of user under Section 77, even if it causes ongoing restrictions or inconvenience to the owner, does not automatically lead to compulsory acquisition of property requiring acquisition proceedings and market-value compensation under the 2013 Act in every case, as right granted to the BWSSB is only a limited right of use, not a transfer of ownership.
Meanwhile, the court asked the BWSSB to assess, determine and pay compensation, if any, payable to the respective petitioners for actual damage, whether permanent or temporary while rejecting plea for removal of sewer from their private lands.
Published - June 08, 2026 09:38 pm IST
Source: The Hindu - India News
