BANGALORE: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday refused a request by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) for staying its March 26, 2007 order directing the board not to acquire agricultural land in and around Bangalore Urban and in Bangalore Rural districts.

The court had on March 26 noted that the board had indiscriminately acquiring more than 12,000 acres of agricultural land in and around Bangalore city and Bangalore district and directed it to maintain status quo and not go ahead with acquisition proceedings.

When the matter came up on Thursday, Justice Huluvadi G. Ramesh reminded the KIADB that he had asked it to maintain status quo.

Despite the order, the KIADB, he said, had gone ahead with certain acquisitions.

He said he had also directed the board to give a status report on the extent of land acquired in the last five years allotted to the beneficiaries and on the land that had been acquired, but remained unutilised.

Senior counsel and former Advocate-General, Vijay Shankar, who appeared for the KIADB, said a report on the land so far acquired by the board in Bangalore Urban and Bangalore Rural districts had been filed in the Registry.

He said all the acquisitions were as per the law and that the lands were acquired for industrialisation.

To this, Mr. Justice Ramesh observed that the lands could be acquired only as per the law and after the Cabinet or the Government approved the schemes.

Mr. Vijay Shankar said all acquisitions were on the behalf of the Government. He said as per the High Court order, KIADB CEO, B.N. Nayak, was present in the court. The court asked him to ensure that the board maintained status quo and said as per the Constitution farmers too had a right to living and no agency could take it away.

He observed that the acquisition was neither approved by the Government nor was it in accordance with any master plan.

He did not pass any order on an interlocutory application by the KIADB seeking vacation of the stay order.

He directed the office to supply copies of the interim orders passed by the court on January 10, 2007 and again on March 26 to T.N. Raghupathy, advocate, who has been appointed as amicus curiae. He adjourned further hearing on the case to April 9.

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