‘NICE wants land for real estate’

‘NICE wants land for real estate’
The Times of India

Bangalore: The state government has sought an interim, exparte stay of the Karnataka High Court judgment on the BMIC project. It filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

This is the third SLP on the issue, after individual ones filed by chief secretary K.K. Misra and commerce and industries under-secretary M. Shivalingaswamy, and by MLAs J.C. Madhuswamy and G.V. Sreerama Reddy. The issue is expected to be moved for preliminary orders on Thursday as SC will be on vacation from Saturday.

The state’s SLP focuses on two issues: One, project company Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise (NICE) wants land around Bangalore purely for real estate. Two, the MoU Karnataka signed with a foreign consortium in 1995 did not provide for assignment of the project to anyone else, including NICE, so such an act is illegal.

Raising nine queries over the judgment, the SLP says: “The division Bench has failed to note that 2,384 acres of excess land acquired from poor farmers has been utilised by Nandi for real estate business in and around Bangalore; this is not part of the corridor project. The division Bench has also failed to note that excess land has been sold to private parties. It is submitted that Nandi is only keen on grabbing prime agriculture land around Bangalore rather than implement the Expressway project.’’

Calling the consent and acknowledgement agreement of Sept. 9, 1996 — empowering NICE to take over and implement the project from the original consortium — a strange development, the SLP says: “It is stated that Karnataka government’s consent and acknowledgement is obtained. This is patently false. The state has not been a consenting party. ’’

Due to this, the SLP argues that the Frame Work Agreement of April 3, 1997, which the Karnataka HC upheld, is also illegal. “Unfortunately, the division Bench did not examine this matter at all. Observations made against the state have no basis. The judgment directing the state to implement the FWA is wholly untenable and impermissible in law,’’ it contends.

Finally, the SLP pleads for a stay as innocent agriculturists would suffer irreparable loss and injury for no fault of theirs on account of fraud by NICE and its collaborators.

‘We expected this’

Reacting to the plea, NICE MD Ashok Kheny said: “We expected this. I have no problem with going through the entire judicial process. We will wait for the Supreme court’s decision.’’

NICE has filed a caveat, by which they will be heard on any case filed on the issue before the court takes a decision.

9 POSERS IN PETITION
Whether the state is not entitled to set right a glaring error resulting in inclusion of 2,384 acres acquired from poor farmers in and around Bangalore. The land was illegally included for compulsory acquisition Can a high court hearing a PIL direct compulsory use of the state’s power of eminent domain, even in case of land which the state’s expert committee classifies as being excess Is not the state entitled to change its stand, when it is found that excess land acquired for a public project is being used for real estate property business? Whether the MoU of 20-02-1995 ripened into a contract on acceptance of project report Whether the consent and acknowledgement (C&A) agreement of 9-9-1996 binds the state which was not party to it Can the state challenge the C&A agreement’s validity on grounds that it was a victim of fraud and misrepresentation Is the state government barred by res-judicata, estoppel and acquiescence with regard to excess land Is constitution of an expert committee in light of severe criticism in the legislature and protests illegal? Whether the issues raised by the Bench cover nature of dispute