The High Court on Wednesday set aside an order by former chief minister B S Yeddyurappa, denotifying land allotted to the petitioner, following an agreement signed at the Global Investors’ Meet in 2000.
Hearing a petition by Lake View Tourism Corporation (LVTC), Justice Anand Byra Reddy set aside the order dated February 3, 2010, denotifying four acres and four guntas.
Yeddyurappa had denotified the land in favour of Lakshmi Tourism Corporation (LTC), one of the respondents. The petitioner contended that the denotification order came after it (LVTC) took possession of the land. LTC purchased the land in parts, after the preliminary and final notifications were issued, the petitioner said.
Citing a High Court order, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that anyone who purchases a property after notification will not have any right to challenge the land acquisition, but can only claim compensation. He said LTC cannot challenge the acquisition.
Justice Reddy allowed the writ petition and set aside the denotification order. LTC had earlier filed a writ petition seeking allotment of the land for its tourism project after the Karnataka Udyog Mitra rejected its proposal, stating that a similar project had been permitted on the same land.
However, LTC, which claimed that it owns the land, withdrew the petition on February 2, 2010. The following day, parts of the land were denotified. The petitioners challenged the same in the Court.
Advance bail
The High Court has granted bail to the two sons of former chief minister B S Yeddyurappa - B Y Raghavendra and B Y Vijayendra - and his son-in-law R N Sohan Kumar, in a complaint pertaining to irregularities in awarding tenders in the Upper Bhadra project. The High Court had granted bail in the case to Yeddyurappa in September.
Justice K N Keshavanarayana ordered the three to furnish a personal bond for Rs one lakh each. They have been asked to appear before the jurisdictional court and co-operate with the investigation. The order bars them from leaving the country without the permission of the jurisdictional court and asks them not to tamper with the prosecutional evidence.
