Karnataka High Court quashes notification of land for BMIC project for not awarding compensation from past 17 years

The High Court of Karnataka has quashed the notifications issued to acquire one of acre of land for the controversial Bangalore-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP), as the authorities have neither taken possession of the land nor passed an award for payment of compensation despite lapse of 17 years.

Justice K.S. Hemalekha passed the order while allowing a petition filed by 65-year-old Rathna S. Reddy, who had questioned notifications issued in 2006-2008 for acquiring the land situated at survey number 41/5, Thalaghattapura village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bengaluru South taluk.

Pointing out that there is an “unexplained delay of 17 years” after issuance of final notification in 2008 for acquiring petitioner’s land, the court said that “prolonged and unexplained dormancy” in not passing award for the notified land “destroys the legality of acquisition”. The court also noted that in judgments delay in the range of 9 to 14 years in passing the award for payment of compensation led to quashing of acquisition of lands for various purposes.

“The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) cannot indefinitely keep the petitioner’s property under acquisition without concluding proceedings and such extraordinary dormancy defeats the statute and vitiates the acquisition,” the court said.

The petitioner had pointed out that name of the KIADB, which is the nodal agency for the project, was entered in the petitioner’s Records of Rights, Tenancy and Crops (RTC) since 2006, when the preliminary notification was issued for acquiring the land for the BMICP.

Though the project-proponent Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd., (NICE) contended that the land is indispensable for the construction of a permanent ramp connecting Kanakpura Road (NH-209) to the BMICP peripheral road and that a makeshift temporary ramp is in place only because the petitioner had not delivered possession, the court noted that BMICP Area Planning Authority had categorically stated that “no ramp, interchange, link alignment or BMICP facility exists or is proposed upon Survey number 41/5, and consequently, that the land is not required for BMICP”.

Quoting apex court’s judgments on the Article 300A (no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law) of the Constitution of India, the High Court said, “Right of restitution and fair compensation, the right to an efficient and expeditious process, and the right to timely conclusion of proceedings are integral components of constitutional protection under Article 300A.”

On the contention that survey number of the petitioner’s land was part of the earlier judgments of the High Court and the apex court upholding the legality of the BMIC project, the court said that legality of acquisition of the petitioner’s land and non-passing of award was not a subject matter in earlier proceedings before the courts as land was notified later.