
Government cannot act as a ‘robber’ of citizens’ lands: Karnataka High Court
The Hindu
Conduct of KIADB and its officials falls militantly short of fairness standard expected of them, the HC said
The government cannot act as a “robber” of citizens’ lands, the High Court of Karnataka has said, while expressing anguish over non-payment of compensation to land owners even 15 years after acquisition of lands for industrial purpose way back in 2007 and realising crores of rupees from allotment of acquired lands.
“The conduct of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) and its officials falls militantly short of the fairness standards expected of them... such a conduct reinforces the shackles of a feudalistic attitude from which the transformative character of our Constitution seeks to liberate,” the Court observed.
Justice Krishna S. Dixit made the observations while partly allowing the petition filed by M V Guruprasad and Nandini M. Guruprasad, residents of J.P. Nagar in Bengaluru.
The petitioners had purchased nearly six acres of land at Jonnahalli in Devanahalli taluk in Bengaluru rural district during December 2006 and January 2007. The he KIADB had acquired these lands in May 2007.
After much effort, the petitioners were able to get their names notified in 2014 by way of a corrigendum to acquisition notification, as earlier the KIADB had notified vendors’ names even after the petitioners had informed the KIADB about their ownership, the Court noticed.
Even though the petitioners filed the petition in 2016, questioning both the acquisition and non payment of compensation, KIADB filed its statement only in 2021, casually intimating the Court that there was some delay in payment of compensation and the payment would be made shortly. The KIADB had also pointed out that acquired lands were converted into industrial plots and allotted in 2019.
Noticing that the KIADB had received a total of ₹7.5 crores from the allottees of industrial plots by allotting the plots even at 50% discount from the market value, the Court said, “There is no plausible explanation as to why the payment of compensation is withheld for decade and a half.”