HC revives Arkavathi dream

HC revives Arkavathi dream
Deccan Herald

The Bangalore Development Authority’s ambitious Arkavathi layout project on Friday received a green signal with the Karnataka High Court declaring that the BDA is “empowered to take up developmental schemes in Bangalore Metropolitan Area”.

The Bangalore Development Authority’s ambitious Arkavathi layout project on Friday received a green signal with the Karnataka High Court declaring that the BDA is “empowered to take up developmental schemes in Bangalore Metropolitan Area”.

However, a division bench of the HC has asked the authority to consider afresh the grievances of the landowners who had petitioned the court questioning the acquisition of their lands on various grounds including allegations of discrimination while denotifying other similarly situated lands.

The landowners have been asked to file their pleas in one month, while the BDA has been asked to dispose them expeditiously.

But the court has made it clear that the grievances of the revenue site owners need not be considered afresh.

Upholding the BDA scheme providing for alternative sites in lieu of the vacant revenue sites acquired for the layout, the HC has given two months’ time to owners of such sites to apply for alternative sites.

But the court has kept holders of general power of attorney out of this alternative site scheme.

Friday’s order has cleared a major legal hurdle to BDA’s other proposed mega projects in the metropolitan areas of the Silicon City.

The verdict immediately paved the path for taking up of civil works in and around 2,000 acres of land, acquisition of which was not challenged before the Court, of the proposed layout.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nauvdip Kumar Sodhi and Justice N Kumar, delivered the judgement while setting aside the April 15 verdict of a single judge bench that the BDA lacked jurisdiction to take up developmental schemes in Bangalore Metropolitan Area.

The 925-page verdict–with 777 pages containing names of petitioners and respondents – delivered in a jam-packed court hall, allowed the appeals filed by the BDA and the State government challenging the single judge’s order.

The order has also set aside the BDA notifications acquiring 2,750 acres of land for the layout, stalling the earthwork for the formation of sites.

Krishna’s plea

The division bench has also expunged certain adverse remarks made by the single judge bench against former chief minister S M Krishna for approving the project “in haste”. Justice N Kumar held that though the BDA is a local authority it is not a municipality as it is not engaged in local self-governance.

“The provisions of the BDA Act, relating to the definition of Metropolitan area and preparation of development plans, operates in altogether different and specific fields and its provisions are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and the Municipalities and the Municipal Corporations Act,” the bench ruled.

Contrary to the opinion of the single judge bench, the division bench ruled that the Arkavathi layout was envisaged in the larger public interest for allotting sites to siteless and homeless individuals including those belonging to economically weaker sections of the society, at affordable price.

Individual vs Public

The forced acquisition process does not amount to deprivation of right to livelihood as the landowners were adequately compensated for the loss of their land, the judges held, pointing out that “law requires that the individual’s right (of landowners) must yield to the larger public purpose”.

The division bench said that the single judge order was not correct in setting aside acquisition of the entire 2,750 acres of land as the allegation of discrimination in denotifying of lands was restricted to only 748 acres of land.

Owners of the remaining about 2,002 acres of land had not challenged the acquisition of their lands.

It was alleged that though the BDA had initially decided to acquire only 3,000 acres for the project, it issued preliminary notification for 3,339 acres and had later corrected it as 3,389 by issuing a corrigendum.

Minor discrepancies

The single judge bench had viewed these discrepancies seriously as the BDA finally acquired only 2,750 acres of land.

However, the division bench in its order said that these minor discrepancies would not vitiate the otherwise valid acquisition proceedings.