MUNIYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the owners of properties bearing Sy. Nos.24/1 and 24/8 measuring in all 4 acres, each situate at Uttarahalli Manavarthakaval, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. THE petitioners in these matters claim to be the owners of the properties and they have challenged the acquisition proceedings mainly on the following grounds:

(2.) BY virtue of confidentiality clause in the framework agreement between the Govt. and the project proponent, right from the inception of the project information is kept confidential though the purpose declared by the High Court and the Apex Court was a public purpose. Only after enactment of Right to Information Act all the information/records are obtained which has revealed the mala fides in the whole project. Therefore, the petitioners seek for quashing the acquisition proceedings contending that their property is not at all required for the purpose of Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP). They further contend that the judgment in H.T. Somashekara Reddy has attained finality and it is the main background for the entire legal arena of the project. If the project has to be implemented only in accordance with the Project Technical Report (PTR) & Framework Agreement (FWA), the petitioners' land is not required. The nodel agency - PWD and the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka on the floor of the Legislative Assembly have time and again declared that there is excessive acquisition of land coming to more than 500 acres already handed over for the project which needs to be returned to farmers, therefore, the very acquisition proceedings are farce and not in accordance with any known procedure. Though an empowered committee meeting was scheduled on 14.8.2009, the said meeting could not be held till today. In spite of this time and again from every quarter there is a demand against. NICE to submit its actual land requirement in accordance with law. With these averments they have sought for quashing of the acquisition proceedings holding that the land of the petitioners is not required for the project as the construction near the property of the petitioners is complete.

(3.) APPARENTLY, these petitions are filed after a lapse of 7 years from the date of final notification. Therefore, on the face of the record, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. When the entire village and town knew about the acquisition of lands for the project, as it was the talk of the town, they cannot now contend that they were not aware of the acquisition proceedings. Now, the proceedings pertaining to these lands are at the stage of the procedure envisaged under section 29 of the KIAD Act. At this belated stage they have approached this Court contending mala fides in the whole project as the same is deviated from the plan originally envisaged as per the PTR; the lands of the petitioners not being required for the project, as such, there is excess of land already handed over to the project proponent, etc. All these challenges are considered and answered in W.P. No.3438/2010 and other connected matters. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P. No.3438/2010 and other connected matters. Order accordingly.