ED probing into double compensation paid for acquired land: MB Patil
Responding to JDS member S.L. Bhojegowda in the Legislative Council, Mr. Patil said that in Dharwad district's Kelageri, Mummigatti, Kotur and Belur industrial areas, over ₹19.99 crore was paid twice, involving both landowners and officials. The Enforcement Directorate is probing the matter; one accused is in jail, and excess amounts will be recovered.
Similarly, in Ramanagara district's Bannikuppe village, ₹1.58 crore was paid twice for the same land. A case is pending in the High Court, with ₹75 lakh deposited by the landowner. Disciplinary action has been recommended against the officials involved, he said.
Kadugodi farmland dispute
Opposition leader in the Legislative Council, Chaluvadi Narayanaswamy, raised the issue of farmland in the Kadugodi Plantation area of Bengaluru being classified as forest land. Farmers are already being displaced, and suddenly declaring it as forest land will cause more problems, he said.
Forest Minister Eshwar Khandre clarified that the land had been notified as a State forest in 2006, court orders had upheld it, and alternative land had been allotted as per the Forest Conservation Act.
'It has already been published in the gazette notification. The land was declared as State forest land back in 2006. The land belonging to the Kadugodi Collective Farming Co-operative Society had already been declared government land through a previous order. The local court had ruled that their documents were invalid, and the High Court upheld the same order. Hence, this is now a reserved forest area,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
Shivaram Karanth Layout: Unable to allot sites, Govt. losing ₹1,000 cr annually, says DKS
The State government is losing about ₹1,000 crore annually on Shivaram Karanth layout following a High Court stay, said Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar on Thursday in the Legislative Council. 'The government has invested about ₹7,000 crore for the development of the layout. Due to the stay order, we are unable to allot sites in the layout. The government is seeking legal advice from the Advocate General on this matter. The government faces a loss of about ₹1,000 crore annually due to the stay order.' He pointed out that though the acquisition process commenced 15 years ago, compensation to farmers have not been given yet. PRR project Speaking on the Peripheral Ring Road project, the Deputy Chief Minister said that he was not ready to go to jail by denotifying land, but the project cannot be stopped. 'We are looking at alternatives. We are trying to take land from farmers under the 60:40 scheme. Near Gottigere, though the land has been notified for the road, revenue layouts have come up and there are about 5,000 homes. We are considering an elevated portion of the road,' he told Legislative Council in response to a question on the fate of houses that have come up in revenue layouts besides seeking scrapping of the project. 'I am not ready to go to jail by denotifying the land. Even our government is not ready to do it. The preliminary notification was issued in 2006, and since then, no government has denotified the land. We cannot drop the road project at any cost. It is a ₹26,000-crore project,' he said. Though no farmer is cultivating the land, compensation has not been provided for about 20 years. 'Land prices in those areas are upto ₹20 crore an acre,' he said. When Mr. Gopinath asked who would get the compensation for the land acquired, he said that whoever has the documents will receive compensation.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
DK Shivakumar cites PM Modi's support to defend Bengaluru tunnel road project
Bengaluru: In a bid to stymie opposition BJP's criticism of the state govt's 'tunnel road' project, deputy chief minister on Thursday claimed to have earned the backing of none other than for the state govt's ambitious plan to ease the city's traffic gridlock. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Speaking during a debate in the Legislative Council, Shivakumar claimed to have secured the PM's consent for the multi-crore rupee project, while reiterating that he was open to suggestions, debates, and discussions on the plan to decongest Bengaluru's roads. Shivakumar's explanation came in response to BJP MLC C T Ravi's reference to the project as "unscientific", even as he questioned its cost and compared it to similar infrastructure ventures across the country. Responding to it, Shivakumar recalled Modi's appreciation for the project during his recent visit to the city to inaugurate Namma Metro's Yellow Line. "Some MPs accused me of planning this project to loot money. I want to make it clear, I'm not approaching this as a business or financial venture. I'm ready to face any inquiry if there's a trace of corruption in this," the deputy CM said. He continued: "When the PM visited last week, I requested him not to make empty promises and handed over a representation on these [infra] projects. He readily asked me to go ahead and assured that he would look into it." Explaining the feasibility part, Shivakumar said toll collection will be inevitable. Point-Counterpoint On Cost Questioning the viability of the tunnel road's estimated cost, Ravi compared it with the other major urban infra projects in the country: 9-km Atal Tunnel (Rs 365 crore/km), the 29-km Mumbai Coastal Road (Rs 445 crore/km), and the 119-km Bengaluru-Mysuru access-controlled highway (Rs 71 crore/km). Tired of too many ads? go ad free now In contrast, he claimed the 16-km Hebbal-Silk Board tunnel's cost is pegged at Rs 1,156 crore/km, while the 28-km KR Pura-Nayandahalli tunnel will cost Rs 893 crore/km. He also alleged that blacklisted firms were involved in preparing the detailed project report. Shivakumar, though, dismissed the comparison, claiming that compared to other major projects such as the Gaimukh and Orange Gate tunnels, which cost Rs 1,316 crore/km, the cost of building Bengaluru's tunnel road at Rs 770 crore/km "is significantly lower". BOX Govt to penalise firm for copying DPR content from Maha project Times News Network Bengaluru: The state govt on Thursday said it will penalise a private consultancy for allegedly copying portions of a Maharashtra infra project report and pasting the same into a draft detailed project report (DPR) for Bengaluru's proposed tunnel road. Admitting to "glaring errors" in the draft DPR — highlighted by BJP functionaries during a Legislative Council debate — deputy CM and Bengaluru in-charge minister D K Shivakumar confirmed that the firm would be penalised, though he did not specify the quantum of penalty. BJP MLC C T Ravi earlier accused Delhi-based Rodic Consultants, which had prepared the draft DPR, of lifting content from a similar project between Nashik and Malegaon in Maharashtra. TOI first reported the errors on Jan 8, 2025, citing citizen activists' findings. BBMP earlier disclosed it had fined the consultant Rs 5 lakh.
Economic Times
5 hours ago
- Economic Times
Same-sex couple moves court against Income Tax Act
A same-sex couple has challenged a discriminatory tax law in Bombay High Court. The couple argues that the law unfairly taxes gifts between same-sex partners. Heterosexual couples do not face this tax burden. The petitioners claim this violates constitutional rights. The court admitted the petition and will notify the Attorney General. The LGBTQIA+ community is closely watching the case. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads 'The love that dare not speak its name' spoke up against an 'uneven' tax code on Thursday morning at Room number 6 of the Bombay High Court, a theatre of many epic legal battles. A same-sex couple, in a relationship for years, has moved the court, challenging the law that discriminates against them by taxing the gifts received by one partner from the Income Tax Act, no such tax on gifts is levied for a heterosexual couple, even if the partners are not formally married but are presumed to be in a marriage. They are not taxed simply because they have the possibility of getting to the petitioners, such unequal economic treatment to same-sex couples, who may be in a long, stable relationship, would amount to a denial of the equal protection of the law on the basis of sex --- a form of discrimination prohibited by Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of the petition, the bench comprising Justice and Firdoush Pooniwalla said the court would send a notice to the Attorney General as it raises a constitutional petitioners, Payio Ashiho, a homemaker, and his partner Vivek Divan, a lawyer who had practised at the High Court and worked at the UN headquarters, were represented by Advocate Dr Dhruv to curb tax evasion, Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act taxes any money, property, or other assets received without adequate consideration if their value exceeds Rs 50,000. Such receipts or gifts are categorised as 'income from other sources'. However, as per the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x), such gifts are not treated as 'income from other sources' and therefore not taxed, when received from 'relatives', which also includes 'spouses' (a term that the statute does not separately explain).Unlike the partners in a heterosexual couple, the petitioners are unable to claim tax benefit as they would not legally qualify as 'spouses' as they belong to the same petition challenges the constitutional validity of the explanation to the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, insofar as it discriminates against same-sex couples in taxing gifts received from one partner to petitioners have prayed before the court, (1) to declare the reference to the term 'spouse' as unconstitutional in so far as it excludes same-sex couples in the same circumstances; (2) to declare that the particular proviso is applicable to same-sex couples in a long, stable relationship; (3) restrain tax authorities from carrying out reassessment and imposing penalties relating to transactions between the petitioners. It may be pointed out that the petitioners neither seek recognition nor presumption of outcome of the proceedings, according to legal circles, would be closely followed by the LGBTQIA+ community as it could have a bearing on investments, property ownerships, and some legal victories, community members, often voicing the discriminations they encounter, believe they still have a long way to go in preserving their dignity and freedom. While in 2018, the apex court had decriminalised same-sex relationship by scrapping a colonial era law, in 2023, a five-member Supreme Court bench declined to recognise LGBTQIA+ persons' right to marry under the Special Marriage Act, K Singh, managing partner of law firm Capstone Legal said For such a prayer to be granted, an expansive reading of the word 'spouse' is required to be considered by the Court.'However, the biggest bottleneck would be the fact that no legal provision in India recognises the rights of same sex couples,' said Singh.
