Relief for landowners as Karnataka HC quashes BDA's land acquisition proceedings
BENGALURU: Karnataka high court has quashed BDA's land acquisition proceedings as the civic agency had failed to take possession of the land it had sought to acquire 24 years ago, providing big relief to its landowners.
The proceedings concerned parcels of land - comprising 350 sites - in Hemmigepura and Ganakallu villages of Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru South taluk. The petition was filed by H Nagarajaiah and three others. Bangalore Development Authority had proposed acquisition of land for developing Banashankari VI Stage layout. It had issued preliminary notification on Nov 15, 2000, and final notification on August 21, 2001.
Justice ES Indiresh said in his order, "In view of not taking possession of the lands in question and the majority of the lands in the impugned acquisition proceedings being deleted pursuant to the (earlier) order passed by this court and the govt, the contention by the BDA cannot be accepted that the scheme has been substantially implemented..."
Authorities abandoned scheme: HC
The judge added: "...The acquisition concerning the subject lands is held to be bad in law as the respondent authorities abandoned the scheme."
The landowners submitted BDA had acknowledged, in a Jan 23, 2002 letter, it hadn't taken possession of the land in question.
Following Nagarajaiah's representation, the then CM issued directives on Dec 15, 2010, to withdraw the acquisition proceedings. A subsequent representation made on June 22, 2022, remains under consideration, the court was informed.
The petitioners presented RTC (land record) extracts to establish their continued possession of the properties.
They pointed out various parcels of land in Ganakallu village were previously removed from acquisition following high court orders, with similar decisions applying to land in Somapura village.
The BDA's assertion of substantial scheme implementation was contested. Justice Indiresh noted that for the total 2138 acres intended for acquisition, the authorities have not provided evidence of substantial implementation.
The judge emphasised that the court had previously quashed notifications for certain other land under the same notification. He observed that while other owners' lands were removed from acquisition with proper notifications, the subject land received no such consideration, constituting discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
42 minutes ago
- United News of India
Cong accuses BJP-RSS of oppressing marginalised, rejecting Constitution
New Delhi, June 7 (UNI) The Congress on Saturday accused the BJP-RSS of oppressing the weak and marginalised over the past decade and rejecting the principles enshrined in the Constitution of Baba Saheb Ambedkar. Speaking to media, senior Congress leader Jignesh Mevani said, "For the past 10 years, RSS-BJP members have consistently inflicted atrocities on the weak and marginalized. Among those who believe in the Indian Constitution, there is no doubt that Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, the BJP, and the RSS do not follow the Constitution of Baba Saheb Ambedkar. Instead, they follow the Manusmriti." He further alleged that several leaders from the BJP and RSS have, in the past, openly stated that Ambedkar's Constitution should be discarded. "They don't want the Constitution of India — they want the Manusmriti," he said. Mevani said, "From the tragic suicide of Rohith Vemula, the denial of dignity to the Hathras victim and her family, the brutal assault on Dalit youth in Una, Gujarat, and a controversial remark by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who once said in Parliament, 'Chanting Ambedkar-Ambedkar has become a fashion these days' only shows the ruling party's regressive mindset. 'Whether or not BJP-RSS leaders have vermillion in their veins, the ideology of Manusmriti certainly flows through them,' Mevani alleged. Pointing at incidents of atrocities on Dalits in Gujarat, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, Mevani alleged that none of the chief ministers or home ministers of the states has stood with the Dalit and tribal victims. He also slammed the BJP-ruled Gujarat government for "low conviction" rate and urged the Prime Minister to take cognizance of the matter and question the Gujarat government. UNI RBE PRS
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Madras High Court initiates contempt proceedings against Tamil Nadu Chief Secretaries
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has initiated suo motu contempt of court proceedings against officers who have served as the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu from September 19, 2023 until now for failing to take action as per the court's orders issued on that date in a batch of petitions filed regarding issues in providing appointments based on compassionate grounds to the dependents of government staff who died in harness. The directions issued to the Chief Secretary in the September 19, 2023 included a direction to set up a committee to look into the issues in the appointments on compassionate grounds and recommend necessary amendments to the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2023, to fix a time frame. Observing that a perusal of records by the court established that no such action had been taken, Justice Battu Devanand on Friday said that the court was of the 'prima facie opinion' that the Chief Secretary had failed to comply with the order. He directed the Registrar (Judicial) to get the particulars of the officers concerned and register a contempt case against them under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution. The judge further directed the Registrar to issue notices to them to enable them to submit their response by June 20. It can be noted that incumbent Chief Secretary N. Muruganandam and his predecessor Shiv Das Meena have served in this post in the period mentioned by the court. The contempt of court proceedings has been initiated for failing to obey the orders, particularly in connection with a 2020 writ petition filed by a Nithya of Coimbatore, whose father died while working in the Transport department, for getting an appointment in the same department on compassionate grounds, and a batch of similar petitions. Expressing 'deep anguish' and 'displeasure' towards the attitude of the Chief Secretary for 'disrespecting the court's orders and failing to execute them in 'true letter and spirit,' Justice Battu Devanand said the present issue is a 'classic example' of the 'lethargic attitude' of several bureaucrats. He said that chief secretaries have no concern towards the common people and poor litigants. Such litigants are not able to enjoy the fruits of justice even after the passing of orders by the Madras High Court. He said the court intends to initiate the suo motu contempt proceedings to send a clear message to the bureaucrats, who are acting 'brazenly' and not implementing the court's orders.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
Preventive detention is an extraordinary power, use it sparingly: SC
Preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly, said the Supreme Court as it set aside an order to detain a man indulging in money lending in Kerala. A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan said the circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail in cases against him, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. "Therefore, the order of detention dated June 20, 2024, and the impugned judgment dated September 4, 2024, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam are hereby set aside. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is allowed," the bench said in its order passed on Friday. Noting that the power of preventive detention finds recognition in the Constitution under Article 22(3)(b), the bench said, "The provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature." The bench said the contention of the detaining authority that the detainee, Rajesh, who used to run a private financing company called 'Rithika Finance', was violating the conditions of bail imposed upon him in the cases that have been considered for passing the order of detention. It said that pertinently, no application has been filed by the respondent in any of the four cases, alleging violation of such conditions, if any, and moreover, have not even been spelt out during the hearing of the case filed by his wife against the Kerala High Court order, which affirmed the preventive detention order of the Palakkad district magistrate. "Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we have no doubt that the order of detention cannot be sustained. The circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. "We clarify that if such an application for cancellation of the detainee's bail is made by the respondent - state, the same must be decided uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove," the bench noted. It referred to the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, and said that the object of the statute was to provide for effective prevention of certain anti-social activities in the state. The bench said Section 2(j) of the state law defines 'goonda' as a person who indulges in activities that are harmful to the maintenance of public order, either directly or indirectly, and includes persons who are bootleggers, counterfeiters, drug offenders, and loan sharks, among others. The bench also said that under Section 3 of the Act, the district magistrate so authorised or the government may pass an order directing detention of a "known goonda" to prevent commission of antisocial activities within the state of Kerala. "Coming to the attending facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act was not justified in law," the top court said, as it noted four cases lodged under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, cited by the police for recommending preventive detention to the district magistrate. The police stated that the detainee was a "notorious goonda" in the district and a threat to the society at large. Aggrieved by the order of his detention dated June 20, 2024, Rajesh's wife filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court assailing the order and praying for a writ of habeas corpus to the state against the "illegal" detention of her husband. The high court on September 4 last year affirmed the order of preventive detention. Aggrieved by the order, the detainee's wife moved the top court challenging the decision. On December 10, 2024, the top court ordered the detainee to be released as his maximum period of detention under the Act was over.
