<div align="justify">The Supreme Court on Saturday dismissed a plea against acquisition of six acres for an information technology park in Kadubeesanahalli, Bengaluru. Planned 12 years ago, the project had run into resistance from some land owners. “Development in the country will be seriously impaired if all land acquisition is questioned,” the court said.<br /><br />Kadubeesanahalli is in eastern Bengaluru, between Bellandur and Marathahalli, about 10 km from the IT hub of Whitefield. A bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Amitava Roy rejected the argument of senior advocate Kapil Sibal against a Karnataka High Court order dated November 26, 2012. Sibal appeared for the land owners.<br /><br />The High Court order had upheld the allotment of six acres and three guntas (out of nine acres and nine guntas in Kadubeesanahalli) to Mysore IT Solutions Ltd on April 9, 2007. The government started acquiring land in 2005 through the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. The disputed land in Kadubeesanahalli was part of a 190-acre development proposed by the government.<br /><br />The Supreme Court decision on Saturday brings to an end a full decade of litigation. The bench concurred with the contentions of senior advocate Harish Salve, assisted by Nishant A V and Balaji Srinivasan, appearing for Mysore IT Solutions.<br /><br />They had submitted that the acquisition called for no interference as Bengaluru had become a hub for technology start-ups. The project in Kadubeesanahalli will add to the growing Indian technology work force, they said.<br /><br />Sibal, on the other hand, argued that the state had not spared the petitioners’ lands even though they had claimed no compensation. He wanted to know why the benefits of denotification had been extended to some owners, but not to the petitioners.<br /><br />The bench remained unconvinced, and said the acquisitions had been made independently under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, and could not be judged on the basis of denotification elsewhere.<br /><br /></div>
<div align="justify">The Supreme Court on Saturday dismissed a plea against acquisition of six acres for an information technology park in Kadubeesanahalli, Bengaluru. Planned 12 years ago, the project had run into resistance from some land owners. “Development in the country will be seriously impaired if all land acquisition is questioned,” the court said.<br /><br />Kadubeesanahalli is in eastern Bengaluru, between Bellandur and Marathahalli, about 10 km from the IT hub of Whitefield. A bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Amitava Roy rejected the argument of senior advocate Kapil Sibal against a Karnataka High Court order dated November 26, 2012. Sibal appeared for the land owners.<br /><br />The High Court order had upheld the allotment of six acres and three guntas (out of nine acres and nine guntas in Kadubeesanahalli) to Mysore IT Solutions Ltd on April 9, 2007. The government started acquiring land in 2005 through the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. The disputed land in Kadubeesanahalli was part of a 190-acre development proposed by the government.<br /><br />The Supreme Court decision on Saturday brings to an end a full decade of litigation. The bench concurred with the contentions of senior advocate Harish Salve, assisted by Nishant A V and Balaji Srinivasan, appearing for Mysore IT Solutions.<br /><br />They had submitted that the acquisition called for no interference as Bengaluru had become a hub for technology start-ups. The project in Kadubeesanahalli will add to the growing Indian technology work force, they said.<br /><br />Sibal, on the other hand, argued that the state had not spared the petitioners’ lands even though they had claimed no compensation. He wanted to know why the benefits of denotification had been extended to some owners, but not to the petitioners.<br /><br />The bench remained unconvinced, and said the acquisitions had been made independently under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, and could not be judged on the basis of denotification elsewhere.<br /><br /></div>
