High Court upholds acquisition of land for extension of layouts

High Court upholds acquisition of land for extension of layouts

The Hindu

`Acquisition of land is in public interest and meant to fulfil objectives of the BDA Act'

BANGALORE: In a major relief to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday upheld the acquisition of land for further extension of M. Visvesvaraya Layout and Banashankari 6th Stage in Bangalore.

Holding that the acquisition of lands was in public interest and that it was meant to fulfil the objectives of the BDA Act, the court said it did not offend fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Nor did it amount to deprivation of livelihood of the people whose lands had been acquired.

It rejected the petitions challenging the acquisition of the land by the BDA, saying that it did not suffer from any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.

It upheld the acquisition proceedings, subject to certain conditions.

The petitioners, Shamanna and others, had challenged the acquisition of land for extension of Banashankari 6th Stage layout at Vajarahalli, Hosahalli, U.M. Kaval, B.M. Kaval, Raghuvanahalli, Thalghatapura, Thurahalli and Uttarahalli, all in Kengeri hobli in Bangalore south. In the case of Visvesvaraya Layout, the petitioners had challenged the land acquisition in Herohalli, Mallathalli and surrounding areas in Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore north.

The petitioners claimed that the acquisition was flawed as land had been notified and acquired selectively.

They alleged that some lands had been denotified without any valid reason.

They had urged the court to quash the acquisition for extension of the layouts.

They said that 1,532 acres and 17 guntas were notified for acquisition for the Banashankari 6th Stage layout. However, in the final notification, only 750 acres were acquired for forming 5,991 sites of which 4,983 sites had been allotted. Under Visvesvaraya Layout, the BDA had proposed to acquire 737 acres. However, only 510 acres were notified and 3,816 sites formed.

Discriminatory

In his order, Justice Mohan Shantanagouder said he did not find it necessary to quash the acquisition proceedings. However, the plea of discrimination in acquisition by the BDA prima facie appeared to be well-founded to a certain extent when the court looked at the contention of the petitioners and the map.

He said it was relevant that neither the Government nor the BDA had specifically traversed the allegation of discrimination. "Looking at the map of the BDA and the records showing subsequent deletion of land, this court deems it proper to give one more opportunity to all those petitioners who have taken a plea of discrimination."

He said such persons could file applications before the BDA for deletion of their lands from acquisition. If such applications were filed, the BDA would have to consider them after conducting an inquiry. If the petitioners were able to establish that their acquired lands/converted sites/built up structures are also similarly situated as that of others whose lands had not been acquired, they would be excluded from acquisition.