In recent days, the proposed conversion of land in Kusanur village within Kalaburagi Taluk has ignited significant debate and contention among local stakeholders. The Siddhartha Vihara Trust, which is overseen by AICC president Mallikarjun Kharge and Minister Priyank Kharge as trustees, has sought to change the designation of a particular plot from a designated park zone to commercial use. This decision has incited a wave of opposition from community members urging local authorities to reject the application outright.
On February 10, the Kalaburagi Urban Development Authority (KUDA) made headlines by issuing a public notice inviting responses regarding the proposed conversion of this land. This notice has served as a rallying point for residents and stakeholders, who have expressed vehement opposition to the initiative. The situation is far from straightforward, especially considering that it follows closely on the heels of a separate controversy in which the Siddhartha Vihara Trust relinquished a parcel of land designated for the Hi-Tech Defence and Aerospace Park in Bagalur, Bengaluru, after facing substantial public pushback.
The land in question is a two-acre, seven-gunta area within the Revised-2 Master Plan, which was earmarked for a public park. However, the Siddhartha Vihara Trust’s application, submitted in January, seeks to alter this classification to accommodate commercial development. Their justification hinges on the argument that KUDA has failed to acquire the property promptly under Section 69(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act of 1961, which places certain obligations on development authorities regarding land acquisition.
Advocates for the conversion claim that transforming the land for commercial use would foster “urban development, provide essential infrastructure, generate employment, and create housing opportunities.” However, this narrative has not resonated with all local stakeholders. Indeed, many are concerned about this change’s broader implications for public welfare and the environment. Prominent among the objectors is Siddalinga Swami, the national honorary president of Sri Ram Sene. In a formal appeal addressed to KUDA, he urged the authority to reject the proposed conversion vehemently.
In his letter dated February 10, Siddalinga Swami highlighted that an adjacent piece of land in Survey No. 83 had been acquired for a significant sum to facilitate the development of a public park. Despite this investment of public funds, however, no park has yet been established. Instead, he noted, only a perimeter wall has been erected, leaving the land essentially vacant, leading him to question the trust’s commitment to public interests.
Siddalinga Swami further emphasised that allowing commercial activities in the area would jeopardise the public’s interests, particularly for visitors to the historic Buddha Vihara, which is located nearby. “A well-maintained park would serve thousands of devotees who visit the site regularly. Introducing commercial establishments would not only create disturbances but also compromise the spiritual atmosphere of this sacred location,” he articulated in his appeal, drawing attention to the invaluable interconnection between green spaces and religious visitation.
Furthermore, several local educational institutions are situated nearby, adding another layer of complexity to the matter. Opponents of the conversion have insisted that preserving this land as a green space is essential for the community, especially for students who rely on access to such environments for recreation and respite from urban life. They argue that transforming the land into a commercial zone would detract from residents’ quality of life, particularly those seeking educational opportunities and serene environments for study and growth.
In defence of its application, the Siddhartha Vihara Trust has pointed to the ongoing commercial developments in the surrounding area and asserted that aligning land use with existing infrastructure would ultimately yield benefits for urban planning. They contend that such a reclassification would contribute positively to planned urban growth in the region.
Despite their arguments, staunch opponents assert that the proposed conversion represents a dangerous precedent for the future of designated green spaces. They argue that the impulse to convert land originally set aside for public use into commercial zones fundamentally undermines urban planning initiatives. One objection submitted against the proposal succinctly encapsulated this sentiment, noting, “The lack of alternative land for commercial utilisation does not justify the reclassification of parkland.”
The public notice issued by KUDA clearly outlined that any objections to the proposed conversion must be submitted within 15 days from the announcement date. Following this period, the Urban Development Authority reviews all submissions before making a definitive decision. This process underscores the importance of public participation in urban development discussions, particularly concerning land as a vital community resource.
The Siddhartha Vihara Trust’s controversial history surrounding land use continues to influence public perception. In a notable incident in October 2024, Mallikarjun Kharge and his family found themselves at the centre of scrutiny when they decided to return a five-acre plot of land allotted to the trust. This land, located within the Hi-Tech Defence and Aerospace Park in Bagalur, Bengaluru, had been awarded to the trust under the Scheduled Caste quota by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB).
In a formal communication to the KIADB CEO dated September 20, 2024, Rahul Kharge, who chairs the trust, clarified the family’s intentions. “We are withdrawing our proposal and formally request that the board cancel the allocation of the CA site intended for a skill development and research center,” he stated in his letter, citing ongoing challenges and controversies associated with the allotment.
Rahul Kharge further requested KIADB to treat the withdrawal as a voluntary surrender per Clause 8 of the allotment terms. This marks a pivotal moment for both the trust and the Kharge family, reflecting their attempts to distance themselves from ongoing real estate and urban development controversies.
The trust’s members have consistently reiterated that their organisation operates as a charitable institution dedicated to education and social service, devoid of private gain. They have expressed frustration over what they describe as persistent allegations against them, which they view as politically motivated and devoid of foundational merit. “Any educational institution cannot function effectively while perpetually grappling with unfounded, malicious and politicised accusations,” the trust asserted in a public statement, highlighting the challenges faced in maintaining its mission amidst external pressures.
Notably, the current situation has prompted public discourse regarding land use and has exposed broader societal tensions about prioritising commercial interests over community needs. Residents, educators, and environmental advocates are at a crossroads, where immediate development pressures clash with a sustainable and inclusive urban growth vision.
While the discussions unfold, the stakes continue to rise, as local communities weigh the implications of losing green space in favor of commercial pursuits. The outcome of this land conversion proposal will likely set a crucial precedent for future urban planning decisions within the region, underscoring the need for dialogue among stakeholders to arrive at solutions that reflect the collective wishes and welfare of the community.
As the criticism and scrutiny deepen, all eyes will be on the KUDA’s decision-making process as they reflect upon the objections and stakeholders’ views. The efforts of residents, community leaders, and advocates will not only determine the fate of this specific plot of land. Still, they will also resonate within the larger urban development and planning framework. It serves as a poignant reminder that urban spaces are not merely sites for commercial activity, but also vital community resources that contribute to society’s social and cultural fabric.
Comments