Karnataka High Court dismisses PIL against land acquisition for Bidadi township

The petitioner, arguing in person, had sought to quash the final land acquisition notification issued by the state government under provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act (KUDA) on June 13, and stay all tender proceedings initiated pursuant to it on June 16.

Further, the petitioner pleaded that a direction be issued to the state government to constitute an expert committee to examine the feasibility of implementing the GBIT project in non-fertile regions in line with sustainable development policies.

Basavanna said, “Farmers are protesting for over 500 days continuously, against this land acquisition. There is Right to do profession (under Article 19 of the Constitution) and farmers want to do farming and they do not want their land to be converted into a real estate project. I do not find any public purpose here, they (state) have not conducted a social impact assessment study before issuing the preliminary and final notifications for acquisition.”

He also argued that land acquisition notifications were issued under provisions of KUDA, 1987, while the compensation is going to be paid to land losers under provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

To which the bench orally remarked, “That is no basis in law because the acquisition is not under that Act.”

In its order, the court said “The only contention advanced by petitioner is that said notification pursuant to a development scheme of the said (KUDA) Act 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 petition is accordingly dismissed.”

During the hearing, Basavanna also submitted that after the next Assembly election, a new chief minister could be appointed, and he could ‘bypass’ the said scheme.

The bench took strong exception to the argument, saying, “We are not here for political discourses; we will impose cost on you. You may have a vital challenge somewhere, we are only seeing if there is any which can be supported in law.”