The Excessive Courtroom of Karnataka has quashed the land acquisition course of in Byadagi taluk of Haveri district for widening a state freeway there.
Permitting a batch of 5 petitions filed by a number of property house owners, the HC has held the state authorities’s modification to Part 34 of the Proper to Truthful Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka) Guidelines, as invalid in respect of the land acquisition course of for these land house owners.
By a notification dated Might 16, 2020, the state had exempted social influence evaluation (SIA) and dedication in relation to the proposed acquisition of land for State Freeway-136, together with the lands of the petitioners earlier than the HC and different land house owners.
The petitioners in all of the petitions declare to be the residents residing at Byadagi taluk, Haveri district, and have been carrying on enterprise out there space within the stated city.
Pursuant to the request dated February 20, 2019 made by the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri, the Karnataka authorities granted approval on September 18, 2019 for acquisition of lands together with the lands of the petitioners for the aim of widening Gajendragad – Sorab State Freeway – 136 between kilometres 237.05 to 237.90 in Byadagi city.
These house owners had approached the HC which in its ultimate order dated March 12, 2020, directed the authorities to provoke acquisition proceedings for acquisition of the land of petitioners and different land house owners by offering a possibility to them and continuing additional in accordance with regulation.
However two months later, the federal government issued a notification exempting the SIA, following which the property house owners approached the Excessive Courtroom once more.
Listening to the mater, Justice S R Krishna Kumar in his current judgment stated, “The modification to Rule 34 of the stated Guidelines of 2015 (Karnataka) is just not relevant to the topic acquisition proceedings or the impugned notifications.” The HC held that the “impugned notification dated Might 16, 2020 is hereby declared and held to be unlawful, invalid, inoperative, void, illegal and non-est within the eye of regulation.”
“Consequently, the topic acquisition proceedings in relation to the topic lands of the petitioners which have been initiated pursuant to the impugned notification are additionally clearly unlawful, invalid and unenforceable in regulation,” the HC stated.
It additionally quashed the preliminary notification and ultimate notification “insofar as the topic lands of the petitioners are involved.” A complete of 113 property house owners had approached the HC in 5 separate petitions.