The Karnataka High Court on Monday, July 20 dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the state government’s notification to acquire 7,400 acres of land across nine villages for the Greater Bengaluru Integrated Township (GBIT) project, popularly known as the Bidadi township project.
The project, considered a key initiative of Chief Minister D K Shivakumar, has faced opposition from farmers for more than a year.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K S Hemalekha dismissed the petition filed by advocate Rajesh Kampalapura Basavanna, who appeared in person. The court orally observed that it could not examine the merits of the government’s development scheme under which the land was being acquired.
Basavanna had sought the quashing of the final land acquisition notification issued by the state government on June 13 under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act (KUDA), and a stay on tender proceedings initiated on June 16.
He had also sought a direction to the government to constitute an expert committee to assess whether the GBIT project could be implemented in non-fertile regions in accordance with sustainable development principles.
Opposing the acquisition, Basavanna told the court that farmers had been protesting against the project for more than 500 days. He argued that farmers had a constitutional right to continue their profession and that they did not want their agricultural land converted into a real estate project.
“There is a right to do a profession under Article 19 of the Constitution. Farmers want to continue farming and do not want their land to be converted into a real estate project. I do not find any public purpose here. They have not conducted a social impact assessment study before issuing the preliminary and final notifications for acquisition,” he said.
He further argued that while the acquisition notifications were issued under the KUDA Act, 1987, compensation to landowners would be paid under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The bench rejected the argument, observing that the acquisition was not being carried out under the 2013 land acquisition law.
In its order, the court said the petitioner’s only contention was that the notification issued under the KUDA Act was illegal because compensation was being determined under the 2013 Act and, therefore, other provisions of that legislation should also apply.
“We are unable to accept this contention. The petition is accordingly dismissed,” the court said.
During the hearing, Basavanna also argued that a change in government after the next Assembly elections could result in a new chief minister bypassing the scheme.
The bench objected to the submission, saying it was not dealing with political arguments. “We are not here for political discourses; we will impose costs on you. You may have a vital challenge somewhere, we are only seeing if there is anything which can be supported in law,” the court orally remarked.
https://www.thenewsminute.com/videos/bidadi-township-why-farmers-oppose-dk-shivakumars-ai-city-plan