Karnataka high court quashes Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor land acquisition notifications & orders fresh award | Bengaluru News

Share the Reality


Karnataka high court quashes Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor land acquisition notifications & orders fresh award

Bengaluru: In a big relief for several landowners whose plots were acquired for the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) project, Karnataka high court has quashed the acquisition notifications issued between 1998 and 2009.Justice R Devdas passed this order, allowing the petitions filed by P Manjunatha Reddy and others, on the grounds that no award has been passed to date and no part of the petitioners’ land was utilised by the respondents for the formation of expressway, interchanges, toll plaza, peripheral road, or link road.“More than 23 years have passed since the notifications for acquisition were issued during the years from 1998 to 2009, and awards have not been passed by the special land acquisition officer (SLAO). Having regard for the plight of landowners who are deprived of the use and occupation of agricultural lands and are losing their livelihoods, this court has no other option than to follow the judgment rendered by the division bench in the Shakunthalamma case,” the judge observed. In said case, acquisition was quashed on the grounds that no award was passed even after the lapse of 11 years.In a related development, Justice Devdas directed the SLAO to pass a fresh award within three months by taking into account the market value prevailing on April 22, 2019, in respect of A Abdul Rehman Khan and other landowners. “The Supreme Court, in the Bernard Francis case, held that if compensation to be awarded at the market value of 2003 is permitted, it would amount to permitting a travesty of justice and making a mockery of the constitutional provisions under Article 300A,” the judge further noted in his order. The state govt and Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board argued that the top court’s order was confined to the petitioners therein. This contention wasn’t accepted by the high court.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *