Friday, Dec 19, 2003 |
Southern States |
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Karnataka
By Our Staff Reporter
While the court allowed acquisition of land by the Government for the construction of the peripheral road, link road, service road, and ramps, it however quashed the notification acquiring land for construction of townships, convention centres, and allotting alternative sites to the landowners. The petitioners, K.P. Satchidanandan and others, had prayed to the court to quash the notification issued under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) Act on June 2, 1999, and its publication in the Gazette the next day. The petitioners, some of them landowners, had challenged the notification of land acquisition issued by the State Government under Section 28 (1 and 4) of the KADB Act of 1966. The petitioners stated that the project would not only affect their livelihood but also displace them from their houses. Some parts of the land sought to be acquired came under green belt area. While some petitioners said they had not been given notice that their land would be acquired, others said they had not been heard. Justice Chandrashekaraiah dismissed the writ petitions pertaining to "the acquisition of land by the Government in so far as related to the formation of peripheral road, link road, service road, inter-change and ramps are concerned (comprising 60 per cent of land acquired)". He, however, quashed the notification for acquiring lands under Section 28 (4) of the KIADB Act (comprising 45 per cent of the land acquired) for the construction of townships, convention centres and to allot alternative sites to landowners. The court allowed the respondents the liberty to proceed with the acquisition of land, pursuant to the notification issued under Section 2 (1) of the KIADB Act and directed the petitioners to file objections, if any. Once the objections were filed, the respondents were directed to hear the petitioners and, thereafter, proceed with the acquisition of land in accordance with the law. Further, in the event of the NICE failing to execute the project in so far as it related to the formation of peripheral roads, link roads, service roads, inter-change and ramps were concerned, the State Government was ordered to take back the land without paying compensation to NICE and to restore the land to the landowners.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|