Bengaluru Police Face Complaint Alleging Protection of Land Mafia

Rapid Summary

• A field security officer from Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd. (NICE) alleged that the Byadarahalli Police refused to register an FIR concerning 79 acres of land in Kodigehalli village, Bengaluru North taluk.
• The officer, C.A. Siddalingaiah (a retired police inspector), submitted a complaint to the State police chief, accusing local police of shielding land grabbers by ignoring evidence of Aadhaar forgery and encroachment.
• The disputed land was transferred to NICE by Karnataka Industrial Areas Growth Board (KIADB) under a government order in 1999 for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP).
• Five individuals were accused of fabricating ownership documents using forged Aadhaar cards and bogus land records from 1954-55. One claimant was reportedly not born at the time these grants were supposedly made.
• In 2010, Special Deputy Commissioner Ramanjaneya invalidated such forged grants as bogus. However, in 2025, Special Deputy Commissioner Vasanti Amar allegedly legalized these fraudulent claims through an order favoring the alleged land grabbers.
• Evidence including forged documents and video proof was submitted alongside the complaint on September 11, but only an endorsement was issued instead of filing an FIR.
• Siddalingaiah requested actions including filing an FIR under various laws, departmental inquiry against officers involved in negligence or collusion with offenders, and police protection for NICE’s property.

Indian Opinion Analysis

The allegations surrounding this case point toward serious issues related to governance and institutional accountability in handling large-scale infrastructure projects like BMICP. If true, this incident highlights potential gaps between India’s regulatory safeguards against fraudulent practices and real-world enforcement at state levels.

The reported involvement of multiple administrative bodies – spanning decades – raises concerns about systemic inefficiencies that may allow misuse of ancient records or legal loopholes. Furthermore, if law enforcement fails to act despite credible evidence being provided by complainants like Siddalingaiah, it could undermine public confidence not only in policing but also in systems meant to safeguard private enterprise investments tied to government-sanctioned initiatives.

What remains important is how this case unfolds: Will it lead toward stronger checks on bureaucratic endorsements or deeper inquiries into alleged corruption? Resolving disputes such as these ensures institutional integrity necessary for fostering trust among stakeholders – vital for India’s infrastructural development aspirations.

Read more