Court upholds acquisition of land for BDA layout

Court upholds acquisition of land for BDA layout
The Hindu

BANGALORE, NOV. 1. The Karnataka High Court has upheld the acquisition of land by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for the formation of Sir M. Visvesvaraya Layout and laid down guidelines for land acquisition.

Justice N. Kumar gave the judgment while disposing of hundreds of petitions by land and house owners of Sonnenahalli, Ramasandra, Kommaghatta and Ullalu questioning the acquisition of land by the BDA for the formation of the layout.

Laying down guidelines for land acquisition in the future, he said site owners in these areas required sympathetic consideration from the authorities. "A majority of the people had purchased sites hoping for a roof over their heads by investing their hard-earned money, and sometimes, life investment. They cannot wait to get a regular allotment from the BDA in normal case, which may take some years, even decades."

High rates

He said people could not buy a site in Bangalore by paying the market value in any locality. There were many people to buy the few sites that were available. In such a situation, people got sites only after several attempts.

Justice Kumar said people's patience was tested when there was a delay in land acquisition owing to the hurdles the BDA had to overcome and the judicial intervention at every stage of the acquisition process. This led to the formation of the layouts at a snail's pace

and made people purchase sites in agricultural lands and in layouts which were not approved.

It could not be said that this acquisition was driven by the desire for investment. A few purchased such sites with an intention to invest and multiply their money. By and large, those who bought such sites belonged to lowest level of society, were needy and poor, and came from the depressed classes and minorities."

Acquiring sites owned by such persons in exercise of the power of domain and allotting them to people who were similarly placed did not stand to reason," the judge said.

The court pointed out that adequate housing was the right of every person.

It suggested to the BDA to distinguish between persons who were looking for a shelter and those who speculated and purchased sites as investments. This distinction could be identified by examining the sale deed.

"If a site was purchased in the name of other family members, minors, and persons who were not residents of Bangalore, certainly there was no obligation cast upon the BDA to allot sites in lieu of such sales. It would be a just exercise of discretion to award them compensation for the sites acquired. In this regard, every case should be taken to scrutinise each sale deed by the officials concerned, keeping in mind the observation made by this court in the Anjanapura case to see that benefit conferred under the judgment is not misused, abused or misinterpreted."

It said that if an approved layout had already been formed, or if a "pucca" layout had been formed without approval, and if it met the specification of the BDA Act, the authorities should make attempts to harmonise it with the BDA layout. The BDA, if possible, should allot the same site to the petitioners, in particular to those who had already built houses and were living there.

The court felt that this would be the best way to solve the housing problem. However, if these sites or construction came in the way of layout formation, it was open to the authorities to disturb the possession of the occupants of the said sites and buildings and allot sites in the new layout.

Responsibility

It said unauthorised layouts, buildings, and diversion of agricultural lands would not have been possible on the outskirts so blatantly without the connivance of the officials concerned. The gullible public were misled, and demolition of unauthorised construction with police support could not be termed an act of bravery.

The citizens, though some may be poor or helpless, had a right to expect the Government to be concerned about their need for shelter and to fulfil the State's obligation in terms of protecting and improving housing facilities rather than using its might to damage or destroy houses. Illegal constructions should be nipped in the bud instead of waiting till the completion of huge structures at a great cost and pulling it down in public gaze, it said.

Therefore, it was the time the BDA fixed responsibility on the officials concerned who, under the relevant statues, were vested with powers and duty to prevent such illegal acts.

It said the concern shown by it for the poor, needy and downtrodden should not be construed as a licence to allot sites to all persons who had purchased sites in the approved and unapproved layouts.

Justice Kumar cautioned the BDA saying that if persons who were entitled to sites were denied sites, and those who were not entitled were given sites, the matter would be viewed seriously and the officials concerned would be held personally liable for the consequences.