The Union Government’s proposal to sell 44.03 acres of land belonging to the Indian Telephone Industries (ITI) Ltd in Bengaluru's KR Puram is once again in the spotlight after CPI(ML) Liberation MP Raja Ram Singh wrote to Union Heavy Industries Minister HD Kumaraswamy to immediately withdraw the plan. Raja Singh, in his letter, argued that the sale of public assets cannot be used as a substitute for reviving a struggling public-sector enterprise.
In a letter dated October 20, Singh, the Lok Sabha MP from Karakat in Bihar and floor leader of the CPI(ML) Liberation parliamentary group, said that the land, originally acquired or allotted for a public purpose, should not be treated as a commercial real estate asset to clear the company's financial liabilities.
“Land monetisation cannot become a backdoor route to privatising public assets,” Singh wrote, adding that ITI's financial difficulties should be addressed through technological modernisation, expansion and secure employment.
The letter comes amid a dispute between the Union and Karnataka governments over the proposed auction of prime property in Bengaluru. The National Land Monetisation Corporation (NLMC), acting on behalf of ITI, invited bids for the 44.03-acre parcel in August and set the reserve price at Rs 1,685.40 crore.
Karnataka has challenged the proposed transaction, arguing that the land was originally acquired for establishing and expanding the ITI factory and that its transfer for another purpose raises legal questions. The controversy has since drawn objections from state Congress leaders and the CPI(ML) Liberation MP, bringing the future of the land, the public-sector company's finances and the interests of workers into focus.
ITI Ltd is a central public-sector undertaking engaged in manufacturing telecommunications equipment and providing related infrastructure and services. Established in 1948, the company has been part of India's telecommunications manufacturing ecosystem for decades.
The proposed auction is part of the Union government's effort to monetise land and other assets held by public-sector enterprises. The stated mechanism is to unlock the value of assets and generate funds, including for public-sector companies facing financial pressures.
According to ITI's regulatory disclosure reported by Business Standard on August 19, 2026, the NLMC issued a request for proposal for the e-auction of 44.03 acres in Krishnarajapuram village, along Old Madras Road and National Highway 75. The reserve price was fixed at Rs 1,685.40 crore, equivalent to approximately Rs 38.28 crore per acre.
The bidding process was structured as an e-tender followed by a forward e-auction. The original schedule set September 16 as the deadline for submitting technical bids and earnest money deposits. Subsequent reporting indicated that the bidding schedule was revised amid objections from the Karnataka government.
The land is a valuable urban parcel. The auction documents described it as designated for commercial or business use under the Bangalore Development Authority's Revised Master Plan 2015, according to the Business Standard. The proposed transaction is an outright sale rather than a lease.
The proposed auction is not the first instance of ITI monetising its land in KR Puram. The NLMC's official website lists a 21-acre ITI land parcel in the same area among its completed monetisation projects, recording proceeds of Rs 914.31 crore.
The sale of the 21-acre parcel to the Central GST Department was registered on July 2, 2026, according to The News Minute's August report on the controversy.
The distinction is important: while the earlier transaction involved the transfer of land to another government department, the proposed 44.03-acre sale has raised concerns about the possibility of a private commercial buyer acquiring the property.
The Karnataka government's objections centre on the circumstances under which the land was originally acquired and allotted to ITI.
In August, the Bengaluru Urban district administration reportedly issued a notice asserting that the land had been acquired for the specific public purpose of establishing and expanding the ITI factory. The administration initiated proceedings to reclaim the land and questioned whether it could be sold for a different purpose without the state's consent.
A report published by Urban Acres on September 4 said the state had also cautioned prospective buyers against entering into transactions concerning the property without verifying the status of the proceedings with the competent authority.
The dispute raises a question about the extent to which land originally provided for a public-sector industrial project can subsequently be monetised by the Union government. The precise legal position depends on the original acquisition and allotment records, the title held by ITI and the applicable conditions, and cannot be conclusively determined from the competing political claims alone.
Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar had publicly objected to the proposed auction even before Singh's letter.
At the Southern Zonal Council meeting chaired by Union Home Minister Amit Shah in Tamil Nadu on August 20, Shivakumar questioned the practice of public-sector undertakings auctioning land allotted to them by state governments.
“This morning, I got a call from my officials that ITI (Indian Telephone Industries), which has become non-functional, is auctioning land (in Bengaluru). We give lands to PSUs, and when they shut down or go out of business, they auction the lands. Such lands should be returned to the government, as we have given them the land,” he said, according to reports.
Shivakumar's objection was that land provided for a particular public purpose should not automatically become available for commercial disposal when the enterprise's circumstances change.
The Karnataka government's position, however, is distinct from the broader argument advanced by Singh. While the state has questioned the legality and original purpose of the land transfer, the CPI(ML) MP has also challenged the underlying policy of selling public assets to address the financial problems of public-sector companies.
On October 22, Shivakumar travelled to New Delhi to meet Union ministers and said he would raise the ITI land issue with the Centre. “They want to auction it, but there are some legal issues,” he told reporters, according to a PTI report. He said he would request the Centre to return the land.
The proposed auction had also drawn opposition from former Congress MLC Ramesh Babu, chairman of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee's Media and Communication Department.
In a representation to the Union government in August, Babu urged the Centre to cancel or defer the e-auction and called for a joint survey by the Union and state governments.
He said the erstwhile Mysore government had allotted approximately 400 acres to establish ITI in 1948, free of cost or at concessional rates, to serve a public purpose and generate employment. He also questioned the status of portions of the proposed auction parcel that he said were classified as government land, including kharab land.
Babu argued that the transfer of such land to private commercial bidders could undermine the purpose for which it had originally been allotted. He suggested that it be retained for a public-sector project, manufacturing or industrial hub, skill development centre or other public infrastructure.
Singh's October 20 letter goes beyond the question of land ownership to challenge the economic rationale for the proposed sale.
He argued that public-sector land should not be treated as a commodity when it was acquired or allotted for a defined public purpose. Selling such land to repay loans and clear statutory and employee liabilities, he said, would effectively make workers bear the cost of failures by governments and managements.
“Why are workers and the public repeatedly told that public assets must be sold to clear liabilities, while large corporations continue to enjoy concessions, write-offs and restructurings?” he asked.
Singh called instead for a revival plan for ITI that would include technological modernisation, expansion and secure employment. He also urged the Union government to ensure that the company had adequate finances to meet its obligations and continue operations.