Land acquisition: BMRCL told to follow preliminary notification
The High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday directed the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) to adhere to the preliminary notification in connection with acquisition of land for Metro project.
The petitioner, Malini Sriram had challenged the preliminary and final acquisition notifications to acquire her property claiming that both were contradictory. While the preliminary notification showed the area earmarked for acquisition as 695.05 sq meters, the final notification showed the extent as 711.50 sq meters.
Malini had stated that being a dancer, she planned to set up an arts academy at her house which has a heritage tag, and sought to quash the acquisition notifications. She had contended that the respondents have not explored the possibility of underground railway which would have saved several structures. Justice Nagmohan Das disposed off the petition directing the BMRCL to stick to the preliminary notification.
Health report sought
The High Court has issued directions to the Director of Nimhans to submit a report after examining the health of the petitioner Karibasamma, who has sought permission for euthanasia. The Court pulled up the government counsel for the delay in filing objections. B Karibasamma (70) had filed a petition seeking permission to end her life, as she has been suffering from severe pain for the last few years.
Adjourned
The High Court has adjourned the hearing on the petition by former Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalitha seeking retranslation of entire documents.
During the hearing of the petition by Jayalalitha, Special Prosecutor for the State of Tamil Nadu, B V Acharya submitted that the translation was done by the experts and the petitioners had earlier never pointed out to the mistakes.
He also submitted that the statements of of 259 witness runs upto 70,000 pages and the petitioners did not come out with any mistakes then. “ They don’t even suggest any person for translation,” he said.
When the counsel for the Jayalalitha insisted on translation, the Court questioned why don’t they get it translated and adjourned the matter stating that it will be discussed during the next hearing.
