Respondents unhappy with High Court judgment

Respondents unhappy with High Court judgment

The Hindu

Say they are planning to form a syndicate to challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court

# Main grouses BDA has been selective in acquiring land
# Compensation is not according to market rates
# Plight of farmers has not been considered

BANGALORE: The respondents expressed unhappiness over Friday's judgment of the Karnataka High Court upholding the Bangalore Development Authority's right to acquire land and also giving the green signal to go ahead with work on Arkavathy Layout.

Some of them said they would form a syndicate and challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court

Manjunath, a farmer from Amruthahalli, said the Division Bench of the High Court should not have given the BDA the power to acquire the land. "The BDA has not properly done the work of acquiring and also paying compensation. It has been selective in acquiring land. The compensation given by it is not according to the market rates," he said.

Shankar, another farmer whose land has been acquired, was not forthcoming on the judgment that provided him with a 20 ft x 30 ft site along with the compensation amount. "Does providing a site bridge the difference between the compensation and the actual market price? The High Court seems to have not considered the plight of the farmers whose land has been acquired for Arkavathy Layout."

Another respondent said the BDA has still not paid the compensation.

BDA's stand

Setting aside complaints about non-payment of compensation, BDA Commissioner M.N. Vidyashankar said, "We had kept compensation ranging between Rs. 11 lakhs and Rs. 20 lakhs ready for the farmers. We organised `melas' in all the villages for disbursing the compensation amount. But the farmers stopped approaching the BDA after filing cases in the High Court." He added that the farmers could collect the compensation after producing the encumbrance and other documents proving ownership of the land.

The Commissioner said BDA counsel has filed a caveat in the Supreme Court.