KIADB heaves a sigh of relief

KIADB heaves a sigh of relief

Staff Reporter

High Court stays order referring land acquisition to Lokayukta for an inquiry

BANGALORE: Officials of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) on Friday heaved a sigh of relief when the Karnataka High Court stayed the order of a single judge referring the acquisition of land by the Board in the past five years to the Lokayukta for an inquiry. The order also barred it from acquiring and allocating land in and around Bangalore city and Bangalore district.

On April 18, the single judge had pulled up the State Government and the Board for indiscriminately acquiring agricultural land in and around Bangalore and in Bangalore Urban and Rural districts and referred the matter to the Lokayukta for investigation. He also referred the case to a Division Bench, saying that it was more in the nature of a public interest litigation (PIL) petition.

The single judge said he had taken judicial note of the manner in which the acquisitions had been made in the past five years. The Board officials had thrown all norms to the wind and, in some cases, acquired entire villages. In a majority of the cases, the acquisitions running into thousands of acres were made by it without obtaining Cabinet approval.

He had refusing to vacate an earlier order of March 26 directing the Board not to acquire agricultural land and not to allot them to industries. Aggrieved by the order, the Board filed an appeal against it on Wednesday.

In its appeal, the Board said the single judge had erred and the order was opposed to the judgment of the Supreme Court in V.K. Majotre vs. Union of India where it had said that writ courts could decide issues arising from pleadings only and the subject matter of the writ could not be enlarged. The courts could not also order a roving inquiry.

The Board said the petition pertained only to an order by it asking a silk unit to give back land not utilised for the project for which it was allotted. It said it was prepared to withdraw the notification and issue fresh orders as per the law. The single judge, therefore, could not have gone into issues that did not arise in the petition.

The Board also contested the remarks made against it by the judge and said they were not warranted. It said the Supreme Court had permitted the compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes in the Ramaniklal N. Bhutta vs. Maharashtra case and such acquisition did not lead to deprivation of the right to livelihood of people whose land was acquired.

A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Bhaktavatsala and Justice Subash B. Adi admitted the appeal and stayed the single judge's order. It adjourned further hearing of the case.