Karnataka HC dismisses PIL complaining procedural lapse in one notification of acquiring 518 acres for Bidadi township project

Despite dismissing a PIL petition related to Bidadi township project, the High Court of Karnataka on Monday said that this order should not be construed as expression of opinion on the other issues related to the notifications issued on the project.

The court made these observations while dismissing the petition filed by a man, who had raised a limited question on the legality of procedure adopted in issuing the first of the final notifications, issued on June 13, for acquiring around 518 acres, which is part of the total 9,600 acres proposed for acquisition for the project.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha passed the order while dismissing the petition, filed by 29-year-old Rajesh Kampalapura Basavanna, a resident of Kampalapura village, Periyapatna, Mysuru district. The petitioner had argued before the court personally.

The petitioner had challenged only the June 13 final notification for acquiring 516 acres of ‘fertile’ multi-crop agricultural lands in two villages for the proposed Greater Bengaluru Integrated Township (GBIT) at Bidadi.

The primary legal contention of the petition was that though the acquisition was made under the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Act (KUDA), 1987, the compensation is being offered under the Right to Fair Compensation Act and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013. He contended that the acquisition made under the KUDA bypasses mandatory legal safeguards, specifically the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) of the acquisition was made under 2013 Act.

“The only contention advanced by petitioner is that said notification pursuant to a development scheme of the said KUDA is illegal, since the quantum of compensation is payable under the Right to Fair Compensation Act and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, all other provisions of the said act are also required to be complied with and therefore the said notification is illegal. We are unable to accept this said contention,” the Bench said in its order.

“However, it is clarified that this order should not be construed as expression of opinion on any other issues in respect of the said notification,” the Bench said in its order.

Earlier, the petitioner told the Bench that farmers are protesting for over 500 days continuously against the acquisition as their lands would be converted into a real estate project. He argued that the final notification could not have been issued without conducting a social impact assessment study as per 2013 Act.