<p>The High Court has dismissed the petitions filed by the land owners questioning the acquisition of their land and properties for the Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) project.<br /><br /></p>.<p>In an order passed on July 22, 2014, the High Court has upheld the Government Order to acquire land for PRR project. Justice Anand Byrareddy, who dismissed the petition, held that the acquisition process, initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, could not be termed as lapsed in view of the recent Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which came into effect from January 1, 2014.<br /><br />The petitioners had challenged the notification stating that there were two preliminary notifications issued by the BDA, before issuing a final notification and the acquisition.<br /><br />Refusing to interfere with the acquisition process of the additional 372 acres of land in the year 2010 to provide services like truck bay and toll gates, along the PRR, the court said that the acquisition was quashed by the High Court division bench following an appeal by the BDA and the same is before the Supreme Court. However the relief for the petitioners is that the BDA has been directed to determine the compensation for the acquired land as per the 2013 Act.<br /><br />‘G’ category sites<br /><br />The High Court has directed the State government to explain its decision taken in connection with ‘G’ category sites alotted by the BDA in the light of recommendations of Justice Padmaraj committee.<br /><br />Hearing a petition by one of the applicants, who contended that no action has been taken in this regard, the division bench comprising Justices K L Manjunath and Ravi Malimath directed the State Government to make a submission in connection with the report on Tuesday, failing which, the court will initaite actionagainst officials concerned.<br /><br />The State government, following a petition by a City-based advocate Vasudevan, had formed a three-member committee headed by Justice Padmaraj. The government had formed a Cabinet sub-committee to look into implementation of the report submitted by Justice Padmaraj-led committee. <br /><br /></p>
<p>The High Court has dismissed the petitions filed by the land owners questioning the acquisition of their land and properties for the Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) project.<br /><br /></p>.<p>In an order passed on July 22, 2014, the High Court has upheld the Government Order to acquire land for PRR project. Justice Anand Byrareddy, who dismissed the petition, held that the acquisition process, initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, could not be termed as lapsed in view of the recent Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which came into effect from January 1, 2014.<br /><br />The petitioners had challenged the notification stating that there were two preliminary notifications issued by the BDA, before issuing a final notification and the acquisition.<br /><br />Refusing to interfere with the acquisition process of the additional 372 acres of land in the year 2010 to provide services like truck bay and toll gates, along the PRR, the court said that the acquisition was quashed by the High Court division bench following an appeal by the BDA and the same is before the Supreme Court. However the relief for the petitioners is that the BDA has been directed to determine the compensation for the acquired land as per the 2013 Act.<br /><br />‘G’ category sites<br /><br />The High Court has directed the State government to explain its decision taken in connection with ‘G’ category sites alotted by the BDA in the light of recommendations of Justice Padmaraj committee.<br /><br />Hearing a petition by one of the applicants, who contended that no action has been taken in this regard, the division bench comprising Justices K L Manjunath and Ravi Malimath directed the State Government to make a submission in connection with the report on Tuesday, failing which, the court will initaite actionagainst officials concerned.<br /><br />The State government, following a petition by a City-based advocate Vasudevan, had formed a three-member committee headed by Justice Padmaraj. The government had formed a Cabinet sub-committee to look into implementation of the report submitted by Justice Padmaraj-led committee. <br /><br /></p>
