Karnataka High Court seeks State reply on PIL against shifting Bangalore Turf Club to Kunigal Stud Farm

The Karnataka High Court has sought a response from the State government regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the proposed relocation of the Bangalore Turf Club (BTC) to the historic Kunigal Stud Farm. The PIL, filed by environmental activist Vijay Nishanth, contests the allocation of 110 acres of the stud farm for a commercial racecourse, arguing that it disregards the land's traditional use for horse breeding and its ecological significance. The core legal dispute revolves around the necessity of Central government approval, particularly concerning biodiversity and environmental impact assessments, given the State's assertion that the matter falls under its jurisdiction and that of the Karnataka Biodiversity Board. This case highlights critical issues surrounding land use conversion, environmental governance, and the balance between commercial development and the preservation of heritage and biodiversity in India.

The Karnataka High Court is currently seized of a significant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that brings to the fore complex questions of land use, environmental protection, and administrative accountability. The PIL, titled *Vijay Nishanth v Union of India*, challenges the State government's decision to allocate 110 acres of the venerable Kunigal Stud Farm for the establishment of a new racecourse for the Bangalore Turf Club (BTC). This proposed shift has ignited a debate among legal professionals, environmentalists, and stakeholders regarding the repurposing of historically and ecologically sensitive land for commercial ventures.

The matter, currently before a Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice KS Hemalekha, underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinising governmental decisions that impact public resources and the environment. The petitioner's primary contention is that the proposed relocation, a commercial undertaking, to land traditionally dedicated to horse breeding, lacks the requisite environmental and biodiversity clearances and disregards the site's inherent value. This article delves into the legal framework governing such land conversions and environmental safeguards, analysing the arguments presented and their broader implications for development projects in Karnataka and across India.

The Bangalore Turf Club, established in 1920, has a long-standing history in Indian horse racing, having moved to its current High Grounds location in 1951. It plays a significant role in the country's equestrian sport. Conversely, the Kunigal Stud Farm, located in Tumkur District, boasts an even older legacy, tracing its origins to Tipu Sultan in the 1780s, who established it for breeding cavalry horses. Subsequently, it was managed by the British Army and the Mysore State, consistently serving as a premier horse breeding centre, and is recognised as the oldest stud farm in India. The farm, spanning over 400-500 acres, has been leased to entities like the Bangalore Turf Club in 1968 and United Racing and Bloodstock Breeders (URBB) in 1992, consistently maintaining its focus on equine breeding.

Legally, land use and environmental protection in India are governed by a multi-layered framework. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002, enacted to conserve biodiversity, promote sustainable use of its components, and ensure equitable benefit sharing, establishes a three-tier structure: the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) at the national level, State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs) at the state level, and Biodiversity Management Committees at the local level. The NBA advises the Central Government and guides SBBs, while SBBs regulate access by Indian citizens and companies for commercial utilisation of biological resources within their respective states. In Karnataka, the Karnataka Biological Diversity Rules, 2005, further detail the functions of the State Board, including advising on conservation and regulating commercial utilisation.

Furthermore, land conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes is governed by Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, requiring prior permission from the Deputy Commissioner. Beyond this, the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, mandates permission for a change in land use, particularly if the land falls within a master plan area, even after a DC conversion. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, is also crucial, requiring prior environmental clearance for new projects or the expansion of existing ones that have potential environmental impacts. The petitioner in the present PIL specifically alleges that no such assessments were undertaken before the impugned government order was issued.

The PIL, *Vijay Nishanth v Union of India*, directly challenges the Government Order dated March 6, 2026, issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, which allotted 110 acres of Kunigal Stud Farm land to the Bangalore Turf Club. The core of the petitioner's argument rests on the premise that repurposing a historically significant and ecologically valuable stud farm for a commercial racecourse constitutes a fundamental change in land use that necessitates rigorous environmental and biodiversity scrutiny. The Court has clarified that the challenge is specifically on the ground of shifting a commercial venture to land traditionally used for horse breeding.

A key point of contention is the applicability of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The State, through Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath, submitted that it had approached the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) to determine if the land qualifies as a biodiversity site, asserting that the issue falls under the jurisdiction of the State and the Karnataka Biodiversity Board. However, Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu, representing the petitioner, countered that Central government approval is a mandatory requirement. While State Biodiversity Boards regulate access by Indian entities for commercial utilisation of biological resources within their state, the NBA's advisory role to the Central Government on biodiversity conservation and its guidance to State Governments on notifying biodiversity heritage sites under Section 37 of the Act are significant. The question remains whether the conversion of a stud farm, even for a related equine activity like a racecourse, falls under the ambit of 'commercial utilisation of biological resources' or impacts potential biodiversity heritage, thereby triggering the need for Central oversight or specific NBA approvals.

Beyond biodiversity concerns, the PIL also raises critical questions regarding land use conversion and environmental clearances. The petitioner contends that no environmental impact assessment, biodiversity assessment, hydrological study, or equine carrying-capacity study was undertaken before the impugned order. This directly implicates the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, which mandates prior environmental clearance for new projects or significant changes to existing ones that could have environmental impacts. The absence of such assessments, if proven, would represent a significant procedural lapse. Furthermore, the Karnataka High Court has previously held that permission for change of land use under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, is mandatory even after agricultural land is converted for non-agricultural purposes under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, if the land falls within a master plan. This dual requirement underscores the stringent regulatory framework for land repurposing in the state.

The role of Public Interest Litigation in environmental governance is well-established in India, allowing courts to address systemic harms and executive inaction. The present PIL exemplifies this, seeking judicial intervention to ensure adherence to environmental laws and proper administrative procedures in decisions affecting public land and ecological assets. The historical significance of Kunigal Stud Farm, coupled with its ecological value as a biologically rich landscape with grazing lands, mature trees, and water systems, strengthens the petitioner's argument that the proposed shift is not merely a commercial relocation but a matter of significant public interest and environmental concern.

The Karnataka High Court's engagement with the PIL challenging the relocation of the Bangalore Turf Club to the Kunigal Stud Farm underscores the intricate interplay between commercial development, environmental protection, and the preservation of historical assets. The case presents a multi-faceted legal challenge, requiring the Court to interpret and apply provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. The outcome will likely set an important precedent for future land repurposing projects, particularly those involving historically significant or ecologically sensitive areas.

For legal practitioners, this case highlights the critical importance of conducting thorough due diligence, including comprehensive environmental and biodiversity impact assessments, before advising on or undertaking any significant land use change. It reinforces that administrative decisions impacting public land and environmental resources are subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny, especially when challenged through Public Interest Litigations. Attorneys should closely monitor the Court's determination on the jurisdictional debate between Central and State authorities regarding biodiversity clearances, as well as its findings on the necessity and adequacy of environmental assessments. The final judgment will offer crucial guidance on balancing developmental aspirations with the imperative of conservation and sustainable resource management in India.