For nearly twenty years, farmers in Bidadi could neither sell their land nor build on it.
Their villages, Kempayyanapalya, Vaderahalli, and Mandalahalli, were declared a red zone in 2006 after the Karnataka government proposed building a massive satellite township on the outskirts of Bengaluru. The project never materialised. Governments changed, chief ministers came and went, and the plan was repeatedly shelved. But the restrictions on selling or developing properties stayed.
On June 11, 2026, the government finally came for the land.
The Karnataka government issued a final notification to acquire 518 acres across three villages, the first phase of a proposed 9,600-acre acquisition spread across nine revenue and 16 non-revenue villages. The land will form part of the Greater Bengaluru Integrated Township (GBIT), which the government is branding as India's first AI-powered city.
Farmers have come together under the banner of the Raithara Bhoohitha Rakshana Sangha (translates to Farmers' Land Protection Organisation). They have been protesting the acquisition for more than 450 days. The notification went ahead anyway.
A project that outlived governments
The township was first proposed in 2006 under the JD(S)-BJP coalition government headed by then Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy. Thousands of acres around Bidadi were earmarked for a satellite township and notified as a red zone, effectively freezing development. Landowners could neither build nor freely transact their property.
When Kumaraswamy's government fell, the project stalled. It was revived, stalled and revived again across successive administrations. In 2023, the executing agency was upgraded to the Greater Bengaluru Development Authority (GBDA). In February 2025, the state cabinet approved the rebranded project. In March 2025, fresh notices were issued to farmers. In June 2026, the final notification arrived.
DK Shivakumar's flagship project
The project has also changed dramatically over the years.
What began as a satellite township is now the Greater Bengaluru Integrated Township (GBIT), a proposed second central business district spread across 9,600 acres southwest of Bengaluru.
The government says the township will house residential layouts, commercial districts, AI industry clusters, public infrastructure and green spaces. More than 2,000 acres are proposed for AI-based industries, with officials projecting investments worth over Rs 18,000 crore and one lakh jobs.
Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar has made the township one of his flagship infrastructure projects, presenting it as part of a broader vision to decongest Bengaluru and expand the city's economic footprint beyond its current limits. His brother and former MP DK Suresh was recently appointed a member of the GBDA.
Yet many elements of the project remain undefined. The master plan has not been finalised. A Rs 26-crore tender to appoint a planning consultant opened only last week. Beyond the announcement that it will be an "AI-powered city", the government has released few public details explaining what distinguishes it from a conventional township.
An area surrounded by development
For many farmers, the question is not why Bengaluru needs a satellite township.
It is why it has to come here.
Bidadi already lies between two major industrial corridors — the Bidadi Industrial Area along the Bengaluru-Mysuru Expressway and the Harohalli Industrial Area. Farmers say large portions of South Bengaluru district have already been acquired over the years for industries.
"How many times will you acquire land from the same district? Leave us alone" says Girish, a 50 year-old farmer from Bannagiri.
The government argues the township is necessary to accommodate Bengaluru's future growth.
Chief Minister Shivakumar recently said, "Nobody here is involved in agriculture. Nobody. There are no farmers there. There should be some one or two, ten or thirty farmers."
The claim angered the residents.
Chandan Kumar, who farms silk in Byramangala, said his family earns between Rs 70,000 and Rs 80,000 every month through sericulture. They also cultivate coconut and arecanut.
"In just Byramangala and Kanchugaranahalli gram panchayats, silk trade alone is worth Rs 32.5 crore every year," he said. "Milk production earns another Rs 6 lakh every month."
According to figures from the Horticulture Department, acquiring all nine revenue villages would mean removing nearly two lakh trees, including 87,903 coconut trees, 83,536 arecanut trees, more than three lakh banana plants and hundreds of acres under ragi cultivation.
The villages depend on water from the Vrushabhavathi river, even though it reaches them carrying sewage and industrial waste from Bengaluru. Farmers say they have no alternative. The township proposal promises to rejuvenate the river and restore the 1,000-acre Byramangala lake.
Politics over land acquisition
Former Byramangala Taluk Panchayat member HG Prakash remembers the last time this project was proposed.
"Congress leaders came here to protest. Leaders like Ugrappa, Janardhan Poojary, Motamma, HK Patil and even DK Shivakumar came and protested against the township, saying it would be injustice to farmers. They stopped it. Now the same government is implementing it."
That reversal has become one of the central political arguments against the project.
The protests have drawn support from the BJP and JD(S). Karnataka Pradesh Yuva Janata Dal (Secular) president Nikhil Kumaraswamy recently led a padayatra through the affected villages, promising legal support to farmers. Both the BJP and JD(S) have separately written to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi asking him to intervene.
The confrontation escalated further after Shivakumar publicly invited Union Minister HD Kumaraswamy to Vidhana Soudha for a discussion on the township. Rejecting the proposal for a closed-door meeting at the Secretariat, he argued that any meaningful discussion on the project must include the affected stakeholders. He proposed that the discussion be held in either Bidadi or Bairamangala, where farmers have been protesting against the project.
On June 27, Kumaraswamy addressed thousands of farmers at Byramangala, placing an empty chair beside him carrying the nameplate "Chief Minister DK Shivakumar."
"The Chief Minister's conspiracy to loot the land around Bidadi is not new," Kumaraswamy said. "They have been dreaming of looting this land for many years."
Acknowledging that the township was originally proposed during his own tenure, Kumaraswamy said he had eventually abandoned it.
"The Congress government, including the current Chief Minister, are now implementing the township project that I had dropped,” he said.
The compensation
The government has fixed compensation between Rs 2.07 crore and Rs 2.14 crore per acre and says a significant number of farmers have applied to receive it.
Some applicants said they had little choice.
Nagraju, whose children now live in London, said he applied because there is nobody left to cultivate his land. But, he added, "If they remove the red zone classification, I will withdraw my application. If the red zone is removed, my land will be worth Rs 6 crore or Rs 7 crore. We can develop it ourselves."
That grievance runs through almost every conversation in these villages.
For two decades, farmers say, the government prevented them from developing or selling their land by keeping it inside the notified zone. Now compensation is being calculated on land values they argue were artificially depressed because of those very restrictions.
The GBDA has also offered landowners, who do not want cash, an alternative package — 50% of the developed land as sites within the township, along with annual payments depending on land type to be paid during the period between acquisition and development.
While Rs 30,000 would be paid to land owners per year for dry land, the yearly compensation would be Rs 40,000 for wetland and Rs 50,000 for plantations.
For Chandan Kumar, the offer misses the point. "Even if they pay Rs 2 crore or Rs 2.5 crore, where can we buy farmland? We may get only ten guntas somewhere. They are asking us to take sites. Where will we farm? We know only farming. How will we make a living?"
The government has also maintained that 80% of landowners support the project. Under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, private-public partnership projects generally require the consent of 80% of affected landowners before acquisition proceeds.
Farmer groups insist that consent was never obtained.
"The government says 80% have agreed. Let DK Shivakumar or Magadi MLA Balakrishna come to Byramangala and show us those 80%. We will fall at their feet and give our land.”
The impact extends beyond landowners.
60-year-old Galamma survives by working on other people's farms.
"We earn our livelihood because of farmers. They give us work, tea and food. If their land is taken away, how will we survive? Which factory will give us jobs?” asks Galamma, who does not own any land.
Chandan Kumar said almost half the village depends indirectly on agriculture. "People who don't own land survive by collecting fodder, tending cattle and selling milk. Everyone here depends on farming in one way or another."
For farmer Krishnamurthy, the issue is no longer compensation.
"My parents and grandmother are buried in this land. If I give this land, they will break their tombs and build concrete roads," he said.
"Even if they give me Rs 20 crore, I won't give it. This land is the support for our children. What work will they give us now? I am old, and I have a disability. This land is all we have."