Airport: High Court rejects firm’s petition

Airport: High Court rejects firm’s petition

Staff Reporter

BANGALORE: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday rejected a petition by a private investment firm challenging the acquisition of its land in Kannamangala village in Devanahalli taluk, Bangalore Rural district for the international airport coming up at Devanahalli, near here. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) had acquired nearly three acres in survey no. 118 and survey no. 119 at Kannamangala for the international airport that is being built by Bangalore International Airport Limited (BIAL).

Girias Investment Private Limited said it had purchased land, but the KIADB had acquired it without giving it an opportunity of hearing. It claimed that the KIADB had issued a notification on June 3, 2006, acquiring the lands.

The former Advocate-General, R.N. Narasimha Murthy, who appeared for the petitioners, urged the court to quash the notification. He said the alignment of the interchange had been changed and that this had led to the acquisition of the land.

Advocate-General, Uday Holla, senior counsel B.V. Acharya, who appeared for the KIADB and BIAL, all had defended the acquisition, saying that the lands were vital for the construction of a trumpet interchange (elevated loop to ensure free movement of traffic without affecting the existing road) at the junction of the national highway.

They said once the interchange was completed, it would facilitate smooth and easy movement of traffic to and from the airport. The Government said the interchange project had not been completed due to the case in the court. It said the interchange was necessary as traffic would be very heavy on the road to the international airport.

It said the interchange, if permitted, would not disturb the traffic on the national highway and instead facilitate smooth movement of vehicles to and from Bangalore to the airport. It urged the court to dismiss the petition and thus permit the interchange to come up.

Justice Ajit Gunjal rejected the petition and paved the way for construction of the interchange.

He said, “in the absence of any specific allegation of mala fide, courts could not interfere with acquisition proceedings. He also said that the change of trumpet interchange was already in existence as on May 11, 2005 and, therefore, any direction now to shift it could not be considered.”