The Times of India 10.11.2010
BDA asked to provide Kamakshi Layout records
BANGALORE: Justice D V Shylendra Kumar on Tuesday asked the BDA to substantiate by way of necessary records that its scheme of Kamakshi Layout is still valid. The judge allowed one week's time to the BDA counsel in this regard.
As per the court's directive, BDA commissioner Bharatlal Meena was present in the court.
"You say it has been entrusted to engineering department now. If that is so, how can you justify that the scheme has been substantially implemented as per your own rules," the judge asked the BDA counsel.
B Krishnappa, the petitioner, has claimed that the scheme had lapsed as BDA had passed award after seven years of acquisition as against the five years mentioned in the BDA act. The petitioner has sought an order against BDA which has sought to form 53 sites in 4 acres 10 guntas land, which belonged to him in Saneguruvanahalli, adjoining Basaveshwaranagar.
BDA had envisaged Kamakshi Layout in an area of 514 acres and 16 guntas by way of preliminary notification dated November 19, 1977. The final notification was issued on June 21, 1979 with an area of 517 acres 1 gunta land. On August 18, 1986, the award was approved and handed over to the engineering department in respect of 94 acres 34 guntas leaving out 422 acres 7 guntas land due to private layout and built-up land.
COMPENSATION STAYED
The high court on Tuesday stayed the award of compensation passed by the BDA for acquisition of land for formation of HSR Layout. BDA had passed the order 24 years after the date of final notification of land acquisition.
Justice Abdul Nazir ordered notice to the government, the BDA commissioner and Special land acquisition officer, BDA, who passed the award that too awarding a paltry compensation amount of Rs 52,000 per acre.
The property which is situated on the National Highway measures approximately 9,000 sqft. The plan was sanctioned in 1964 for construction of industrial shed/godown after the DC issued the conversion order. N Madeswara, the petitioner, has challenged BDA's compensation on May 12, 2010.
