Karnataka High Court
Credit: DH Photo
Bengaluru: In a relief to several landowners, in a batch of petitions, the Karnataka high court has quashed the acquisition notifications issued between 1998 and 2009 for the Bangalore - Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) Project. Justice R Devdas has passed this order allowing the petitions filed by P Manjunatha Reddy and others observing that no award has been passed till date and the petitioners' lands have been not utilised for the formation of expressway, interchanges, toll plaza, peripheral road or link road.
The petitioners had contended that though preliminary and final acquisition notifications under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development (KIAD) Act were issued from 1998 to 2009, no awards have been passed till date. The court cited the judgment by a division bench in the Shakunthalamma case, in which acquisition was quashed on the ground that no award was passed even after a lapse of 11 years. “More than 23 years have passed since the notifications for acquisition were issued during the years from1998 to 2009 and awards have not been passed by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer. Having regard to the plight of the landowners who are deprived of the use and occupation of agricultural lands and they losing their livelihood, this court has no other option than to follow the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Shakunthalamma case,” Justice Devdas said.
Meanwhile, in another batch of petitions, Justice R Devdas has directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) to pass a fresh award within three months by taking into account the market value as prevailing as on April 22, 2019. The lands of the petitioners - A Abdul Rehman Khan and others – were acquired for the purpose of formation of the infrastructure corridor project connecting BMIC project. The petitioners requested the court to direct the SLAO to pass a fresh award taking the market value prevailing as on April 22, 2019, as directed by the Apex Court in the Bernard Francis case. The state government and KIADB had argued that the top court’s order is confined to the petitioners therein. The said contention was not accepted by the high court.
“The Supreme court had (in Bernard Francis case) held that if the compensation to be awarded at the market value as of the year 2003 is permitted, it would amount to permitting a travesty of justice and making the constitutional provisions under Article 300A a mockery,” Justice Devdas said.