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

The Karnataka High Court quashed the notifications issued for acquisition of one acre of land for the controversial Bangalore-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP) as the authorities neither took possession of the land nor made any decision to pay compensation even after 17 years.

Justice K S Hemalekha passed the order allowing the petition filed by Rathna S. Reddy, 65, questioning the notifications issued for acquisition of land with survey number 41/5 located in Thalaghattapura village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bengaluru South taluk, in 2006-2008.

Noting that there was an “unexplained delay of 17 years” after the final notification for the acquisition of the plaintiff’s land was given in 2008, the court said that the “long-term and unexplained inactivity” in not tendering the notified land “eliminates the legality of the purchase.” The court also noted that a delay of 9 to 14 years in awarding compensation in judgments led to the cancellation of land acquisition for various purposes.

“Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) cannot keep the property of the plaintiff under acquisition indefinitely without finalizing the case and such extraordinary inaction would render the statute void and render the acquisition null and void,” the court said.

The petitioner had stated that the name of KIADB, the nodal agency of the project, had been entered in the Register of Rights, Tenancies and Crops (RTC) of the petitioner since 2006, when the preliminary notification for land acquisition for BMICP was issued.

Although the project promoter, Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd., (NICE), claimed that the land was indispensable for the construction of a permanent ramp connecting Kanakpura Road (NH-209) to the BMICP ring road and that a temporary temporary ramp was available only because the petitioner had not surrendered possession, the court noted that the BMICP Spatial Planning Authority had categorically stated that “no ramp, interchange, link alignment or BMICP facility is available or proposed as per Survey no.” noted. 41/5 and therefore there is no need for land for BMICP”.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions on Article 300A of the Constitution of India (no person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law), the Supreme Court said: “The right to compensation and the right to just compensation, the right to an efficient and expeditious process and the right to timely disposal of proceedings are integral components of constitutional protection under Article 300A.”

On the contention that the survey number for the petitioner’s land was part of the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court and the top court upholding the legality of the BMIC project, the court said that the legality of the acquisition of the petitioner’s land and non-awarding of the tender was not the subject matter of the earlier proceedings before the courts as the land was notified later.