BMIC project: Karnataka High Court quashes acquisition of several lands, as awards weren't passed even 23 years after notifying acquisition
Justice R. Devdas passed the order on July 4 while allowing a batch of petitions, filed between 2014 and 2024, by P. Manjunatha Reddy and other landowners.
The petitioner-landowners contended that the acquisition process could not be sustained as the KIADB's special land acquisition officer (SLAO) had failed to pass awards till date even though the preliminary notifications of acquisition under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, 1966 were issued between 1998 and 2009, and the final notifications, under Section 28(4) of the Act, were issued between 2003 and 2009.
Justice Devdas relied on a verdict passed in 2023 by a Division Bench of the High Court in KIADB vs M. Shakunthalamma's case in which it had set aside an acquired land, which too was notified for the BMIC project, on the ground that no award was passed even after a lapse of 11 years since issuance of the final notification. The court also noted that the apex court had confirmed the Division Bench's judgment in the Shakunthalamma case.
In the present case, the court noted that over 23 years had lapsed since the notifications for acquisition were issued between 1998 and 2009, and the awards had not been passed by the SLAO till today.
'Having regard to the plight of the landowners who are deprived of the use and occupation of lands and they losing their livelihood, this court has no other option, than to follow the judgment of the Division Bench in M. Shakunthalamma's case,' the court observed.
Pointing out that petitioner-landowners had contended that their lands were not part of the BMIC project and no part of their lands had been utilised by the KIADB or the project proponent — Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises — for the formation of interchanges, toll plazas, peripheral road or link road, which were part of the project, the court noted that this claim of the petitioners were not controverted by the KIADB and others.
Even though the courts had earlier upheld the legality of the preliminary and final notifications for acquiring these lands, the court said that not passing award was a fresh cause of action to challenge the validity of land acquisition proceedings.
'Pass awards afresh based on 2019 market value of lands'
In a boon for some persons who lost their lands to the BMIC project, the High Court of Karnataka directed the KIADB to pass awards afresh for some of the lands, notified way back in 2003, for which the KIADB passed awards between 2019 and 2024 based on the land values between 2003 and 2011.
Justice Devdas passed the order while disposing of a batch of petitions filed by A. Abdul Rehman Khan and others, whose lands were acquired for the project.
The court passed the order while citing Supreme Court's January 2025 verdict in the case of Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others vs Government of Karnataka, in which the apex court directed the KIADB to pass an award fresh by taking the market value of the land as existed in 2019.
In Bernard's case, the land was acquired in 2003 and utilised for the project sans passing award. However, the KIADB passed the award in 2019 relying on the 2011 market value of that land.
Rejecting the pleas against extending the benefit of Bernard's case verdict to the petitioners, the High Court said that 'there cannot be discrimination in the matter of determination and award of compensation'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
Submit action plan to verify correctness of property tax assessments: HC
Madurai: Madras high court on Wednesday directed the Madurai district collector to coordinate with the city corporation commissioner to work out an effective modality for surveying properties, and submit an action plan to verify the correctness of property tax assessments of all buildings in Madurai city. As asked by the court on Tuesday, the corporation commissioner filed a report on Wednesday, stating that there are nearly 3,49,741 property tax assessments within the corporation limits. Pursuant to the court's order, a committee/team with 11 officials was constituted under the deputy commissioner (revenue) of the corporation to ascertain whether any irregularity or under-assessment was made. The team would carry out inspections regarding the assessment, and if any irregularities are found, necessary actions would be taken, stated the corporation commissioner. A division bench of Justice S M Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that details about the action plan were not mentioned in the report. They said an action plan would be helpful for finding out illegalities or under-assessment in the matter of property tax. Hence, the judges directed the district collector to coordinate with the corporation commissioner to work out an effective modality for conducting field inspections, surveying properties, and verifying the correctness of property tax assessments. If necessary, the assistance of deputy tahsildars could be availed to constitute sub-committees in all five zones of the corporation. The judge directed the district collector and corporation commissioner to submit an effective action plan regarding the property tax assessments for the court to ensure that the efforts are taken in a fruitful manner. The judges also made it clear that the special investigation team (SIT) headed by DIG, Madurai range, Abhinav Kumar, should continue investigation into the scam independently. The hearing in the case was adjourned to Aug 26. The court passed the order while hearing a public interest litigation filed by AIADMK councillor T Ravi, of ward 83, stating that a huge scam in the assessment of property tax in the corporation came to light in 2024. He alleged that several corporation officials, in connivance with zonal chairpersons, were involved, resulting in a loss of over Rs200 crore to the corporation. He stated that police had taken action only against low profile people and left out the real culprits who have political influence. During the earlier hearing, the court observed that a scam of this magnitude had to be investigated by an IPS officer, which should be monitored by higher authorities to ensure there are no lapses and no higher-level people are left out from the ambit of prosecution. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Court dismisses plea against BJP MLA's victory in Mumbai's Sion-Koliwada seat
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an election petition filed against BJP legislator Captain R Tamil Selvan, challenging his victory from the 179 Sion-Koliwada Assembly constituency in Milind N Jadhav rejected the petition filed by Congress candidate Ganesh Kumar Yadav, terming it "vague and generic" and lacking the material facts required under the Representation of the People Act, who secured 65,534 votes against Selvan's winning tally of 73,429, had sought to set aside the election result under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. He alleged that Selvan suppressed key financial information in his nomination affidavit, including a Rs 90 lakh housing loan, an arbitral award of over Rs 2.72 crore in favour of Central Railways, and other liabilities flagged in CRIF and CIBIL reports. Representing Selvan, senior advocate Dr Veerendra Tulzapurkar argued that the allegations were baseless and unsupported by documentary evidence. He stated that the loan pertained to a flat purchased in Selvan's daughter's name and was serviced solely by her, eliminating the need for disclosure. On the arbitral award, Tulzapurkar noted that its execution had been stayed by the High Court, and therefore no enforceable liability further contended that the petitioner had failed to present crucial documents at the outset and had attempted to improve the case at a later stage, undermining the credibility of the counsel, Premlal Krishnan, maintained that the omissions were deliberate and materially affected the election outcome by depriving voters of complete information on Selvan's financial Justice Jadhav ruled that the petition failed to meet the statutory requirement under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, which mandates a clear and concise statement of material facts. 'Yadav has merely alleged general and vague violations by Selvan without specifying any details whatsoever,' the court decision aligns with Justice Jadhav's earlier criticism in March this year regarding poorly drafted election petitions, where he remarked on the declining standards in legal pleadings submitted in such that Yadav failed to comply with the mandatory legal provisions, the court dismissed the petition at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, stating that unsubstantiated allegations cannot form the basis for invalidating an election.- EndsMust Watch
Deccan Herald
an hour ago
- Deccan Herald
DPDPA gaps delay privacy promise
Eight years after the landmark K S Puttaswamy judgement affirmed privacy as a fundamental right, its promise remains unfulfilled. The judgement, invoking the Preamble, recognised privacy as an enabling right essential for the fulfillment of all other fundamental rights, including equality. Yet, as automation becomes pervasive across sectors like healthcare and social security, India's legal framework proves inadequate in addressing the biases and discrimination that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) 2023 is a step in the right direction, it suffers from significant shortcomings. The Act's Section 7 provides for 'certain legitimate uses', creating loopholes for extensive profiling and automated decisions. This allows personal data collection without explicit consent for various purposes, including state functions and employment, not just when voluntarily provided..A more significant weakness is the Act's failure to define profiling or regulate automated decision-making. In simple terms, automated decision-making means the use of algorithms to make a decision based on certain given facts or a collection of facts. Profiling, on the other hand, means analysing various aspects of an individual to decide about 'automated processing' is defined, it is not used to grant any substantive rights to the affected individuals. This legislative lacuna is glaring, especially given the B N Srikrishna Committee's recommendations for automated safeguards. While Section 8(3) requires data fiduciaries to ensure data accuracy when making decisions that affect the data principal, it doesn't mandate a right to challenge the process itself. This opacity creates an accountability vacuum, making it virtually impossible to challenge unfair or discriminatory consequences of this regulatory vacuum are profound, manifesting in tangible bias and discrimination across vital sectors. In public services, algorithmic systems like Telangana's Samagra Vedika, designed to assess welfare eligibility, have reportedly excluded approximately 15,000 marginalised individuals due to technical glitches or flawed financial sector faces a significant challenge with digital lending algorithms that can inadvertently perpetuate historical biases, leading to unequal access to credit. This was highlighted by a recent incident involving an Indian NBFC, where an Artificial Intelligence(AI) tool miscategorised over 17,000 low-income applicants as high-risk. The system's bias, which favoured applicants with a strong digital footprint and extensive data, was corrected only after crucial human intervention, underscoring the vital role of the 'human-in-the-loop' approach. The incident serves as a powerful reminder that while the RBI's FREE-AI framework is a proactive step, human oversight remains indispensable in AI-driven credit engaged in platform work are also at the mercy of algorithms and automated decision-making. Studies show that unregulated use of AI in the gig economy can be detrimental to platform workers. While states such as Rajasthan and Karnataka have passed bills to regulate platform work, these bills do not address the use of AI by companies to 'manage' their workforce..A case for human cost is compounded by the absence of a 'right to explanation' in the DPDPA. The Act defines 'gain' and 'loss,' but only uses these terms for monetary penalties under Section 33, not to grant relief for the tangible harm caused by automated data processing. Furthermore, since the right not to be solely subjected to automated decision-making has not been incorporated in the DPDP Act, people are left without a remedy in case of discrimination or errors in the automation process. This lack of legal remedy is against the tenet of ubi jus remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy), given that privacy is a fundamental legislative vacuum in India stands in stark contrast to global frameworks. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) and the United Kingdom's GDPR provide crucial safeguards like mandatory Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) and the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions. These safeguards, along with the EU AI Act's classification of high-risk activities like credit assessment, impose strict requirements on providers, including human oversight and data quality checks. These crucial safeguards are missing from the we reflect on the anniversary of the Puttaswamy judgement, it is clear that its promise of digital rights remains unfulfilled when automated systems can discriminate without our knowledge or consent. India possesses a unique opportunity to lead in ethical AI governance by amending the DPDPA. By including a right to explanation, a clear definition of profiling, and specific regulation of automated decisions, we can fulfil the true promise of privacy and equality in the digital age..(Utkarsh is a final-year law student at RMLNLU, Lucknow; Harshita is a student at National Law University, Jodhpur)
