Bangalore: The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) has moved the Karnataka High Court to vacate the stay on the acquisition of land for the proposed extension of the Mysore airport. Justice Manjula Chellur adjourned further hearing on the matter till Monday.

The proceedings commenced with the owner of a private layout in Mysore challenging the acquisition of land, saying that it was being done in a mechanical manner. The KIADB had proposed to acquire Ramaswamy Layout, measuring 16.5 acres. The proprietor of the layout contended that the acquisition was unnecessary since it did not come in the way of the work on the airport. The KIADB, in its notification, classified the layout as agriculture land before proposing to acquire it.

While arguing against the action of the KIADB, counsel for the proprietor of the layout, Suman, told the court that the Land Acquisition Act had to be applied. The Government said it was prepared to study the issue of compensation before going ahead with the acquisition. The Government also stated that unless the stay on the notification was vacated, the project would remain stalled.

Selection rules

The High Court on Wednesday held that the selection of candidates to the post of Director-General of Police at the Centre (Central police organisations) had to be made in accordance with the IPS (Cadre) Rules and the executive instructions of the Union Government, and not on the basis of the IPS (Pay) Rules.

A Division Bench, comprising Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Justice Billappa, passed the order on an appeal by the Department of Personnel, Pension and Public Grievances, Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Union Department of Home Affairs against an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bangalore. The CAT, on September 28, 2001, allowed an application by the then Director-General of Police and Commandant General, Home Guards, Civil Defence and Fire Force, R. Vishwanathan. Dr. Vishwanathan had challenged the quashing of the panel of directors general of police (DGPs) and sought a direction to them to consider his name for appointment to one of the posts of a DGP listed in Schedule 3-C to IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954.

The CAT allowed Dr. Vishwanathan's application and directed the respondents to consider Dr. Vishwanathan's case along with that of other IPS officers.

The Union Home Ministry and other respondents challenged the CAT order that Schedule 3-C to IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954 included the post of DGP at the Centre, and selection was governed by Rule 3 (2A) of IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954. The Bench said this finding by the CAT was incorrect.

It agreed with the CAT direction against disturbing the appointments already made.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail