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
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Plea in Supreme Court critcises Centre, Delhi Police for non-registration of FIR in Justice Varma incident
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court criticising the Centre for not initiating 'an effective and meaningful investigation' into allegations of discovery and removal of 'burnt' cash from the residential premises of High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, in Delhi following a fire. 'The Central government, which is in charge of the Delhi Police, on it being reported that there has been an incident of huge volumes of currency notes, burned and partially burned, being found and clandestinely removed from the official residence of Justice Varma, was duty-bound to direct the Delhi Police to register an First Information Report (FIR). It amounts to a great failure in the discharge of its sovereign function, nay, duty to investigate crimes and secure punishment to those who violate the law,' advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, petitioner-in-person, submitted in a petition. In fact, the petition echoed the very report of the in-house inquiry committee constituted by the Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, which had also criticised the Delhi Police for its lack of quick action. The inquiry committee had concluded that the police and fire authorities were 'slipshod' for not lodging an FIR or preparing a seizure memo recording exactly what they came across at the scene of the fire on March 14-15. The committee said the 'higher police officers' had sought to explain their inaction by pointing to reasons like the 'sensitivity of the issue' and the absence of Justice Varma at his residence at the time of incident. The judge was in Bhopal at the time of the blaze. Justice Varma, who has himself approached the apex court anonymously in a petition, too has focussed his defence on the lack of any material evidence to base the allegations raised against him. He has attempted to discredit the conclusions reached in the in-house inquiry report by contending they were entirely based on presumptions. There was not even a formal complaint about the 'discovery' of cash. Neither was the alleged cash seized or panchnama prepared. The whole series of events banked on photos and videos privately taken by some officials, his petition in the apex court said. The inquiry committee had submitted a confidential report in early May, affirming the presence of cash and recommending the removal of Justice Varma from office. The then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, had forwarded the report to the President and the Prime Minister to commence the processes of a removal motion in the Parliament. Mr. Nedumpara's petition is the third in a series filed by the advocate in the apex court for registration of an FIR. It has coincided with both Justice Varma approaching the apex court and the opening of the Monsoon Session of the Parliament, in which the Opposition is poised to raise a debate on the removal motion. On the first instance, Mr. Nedumpara had been asked by the top court to await the outcome of the in-house inquiry by a fact-finding committee of three judges appointed by the Chief Justice of India. 'After the committee had submitted its report, no FIR was registered. The petitioner filed yet another writ petition and was asked by the court to approach the President and the Prime Minister… To the petitioner's knowledge no FIR has been registered till date,' the petitoner-advocate submitted. The petition urged the apex court to direct the Centre/Delhi Police to register an FIR and cause or in the alternative to direct the Police/Union government to seek permission of the Chief Justice for the registration of an FIR… what is at stake is the concept of the rule of law, equality before law and equal protection of law,' the petition argued. The advocate intends to make an oral mentioning in court for an early hearing of his petition.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
ED not a drone to attack at will on any criminal activity: Madras HC
The Madras High Court has observed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was not a 'drone' to attack at will, and nor was it a 'super cop' to investigate anything and everything which comes to its notice. A division bench of Justice M S Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan made the observations while hearing the plea by city-based RKM Powergen Private Ltd challenging the ED seizing Rs 901 crore of its fixed deposits in connection with a PMLA case. The ED action came on the basis of an FIR registered by the CBI in 2014 over the allocation of coal blocks for a power plant in Chhattisgarh earlier. The agency filed a closure report in 2017 saying it found no irregularities in the allocation of coal blocks. The CBI court did not agree with the closure report and wanted further probe in some aspects. In 2023, CBI filed a supplementary final report, which found that there were sufficient incriminating materials warranting prosecution under sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. Later, the ED conducted searches in the premises of directors and holding companies associated with RKMP. On January 31,2025 a freezing order was passed wherein the fixed deposit to the tune of Rs 901 crore was frozen by the ED. The company challenged the said order and the court set it aside. The bench said that a careful perusal of Section 66(2) of PMLA points out that if during the course of investigation, the ED comes across violations of other provisions of law, then it cannot assume the role of investigating those offences also. It is to inform the appropriate agency, which is empowered by law to investigate that offence. If that agency, on the intimation from the ED, commences investigation and registers a complaint, then certainly the ED can investigate into those aspects also, provided there are 'proceeds of crime'. 'In case, the investigating agency does not find any case with respect to the aspects pointed out by the ED, then the ED cannot suo motu proceed with the investigation and assume powers. The essential ingredient for the ED to seize jurisdiction is the presence of a predicate offence. It is like a limpet mine attached to a ship. If there is no ship, the limpet cannot work. The ship is the predicate offence and 'proceeds of crime'. The ED is not a loitering munition or drone to attack at will on any criminal activity,' the bench said. It further said that a perusal of the papers show that no complaint had been lodged with respect to any of the aforesaid alleged criminal activities. 'The ED is not a super cop to investigate anything and everything which comes to its notice.' There should be a 'criminal activity' which attracts the schedule to PMLA, and on account of such criminal activity, there should have been proceeds of crime, it said
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 hours ago
- Business Standard
ED not a drone to attack at will on any criminal activity, says Madras HC
The Madras High Court has observed that the ED was not a "drone" to attack at will, and nor was it a "super cop" to investigate anything and everything which comes to its notice. A division bench of Justice M S Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan made the observations while hearing the plea by city-based RKM Powergen Private Ltd challenging the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seizing ₹901 crore of its fixed deposits in connection with a PMLA case. The ED action came on the basis of an FIR registered by the CBI in 2014 over the allocation of coal blocks for a power plant in Chhattisgarh earlier. The agency filed a closure report in 2017 saying it found no irregularities in the allocation of coal blocks. The CBI court did not agree with the closure report and wanted further probe in some aspects. In 2023, CBI filed a supplementary final report, which found that there were sufficient incriminating materials warranting prosecution under sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. Later, the ED conducted searches in the premises of directors and holding companies associated with RKMP. On January 31,2025 a freezing order was passed wherein the fixed deposit to the tune of Rs 901 crore was frozen by the ED. The company challenged the said order and the court set it aside. The bench said that a careful perusal of Section 66(2) of PMLA points out that if during the course of investigation, the ED comes across violations of other provisions of law, then it cannot assume the role of investigating those offences also. It is to inform the appropriate agency, which is empowered by law to investigate that offence. If that agency, on the intimation from the ED, commences investigation and registers a complaint, then certainly the ED can investigate into those aspects also, provided there are "proceeds of crime". "In case, the investigating agency does not find any case with respect to the aspects pointed out by the ED, then the ED cannot suo motu proceed with the investigation and assume powers. The essential ingredient for the ED to seize jurisdiction is the presence of a predicate offence. It is like a limpet mine attached to a ship. If there is no ship, the limpet cannot work. The ship is the predicate offence and "proceeds of crime". The ED is not a loitering munition or drone to attack at will on any criminal activity," the bench said. It further said that a perusal of the papers show that no complaint had been lodged with respect to any of the aforesaid alleged criminal activities. "The ED is not a super cop to investigate anything and everything which comes to its notice." There should be a "criminal activity" which attracts the schedule to PMLA, and on account of such criminal activity, there should have been proceeds of crime, it said.
