Legal provisions involved: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; Sections 28 and 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966; Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.

Judgement by: Karnataka High Court.

Judge/Bench: Justice D.K. Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Chandrika owned land that was acquired for the Bangalore–Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) Project. She accepted compensation in 2007 through a negotiated settlement. Later, she approached the High Court seeking extra compensation, interest, and allotment of residential sites, claiming that certain promises were not fulfilled.

Key legal provisions

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

Sections 28 and 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966

Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.

Issues raised

Whether the petitioner could seek additional compensation after accepting a full and final settlement, and whether claims of promised site allotments were valid.

Arguments of the case

The petitioner argued that the compensation paid was insufficient and that she was entitled to sites as part of rehabilitation. The State and project authorities argued that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted the settlement and signed an indemnity bond, making further claims legally invalid.

Judgement

The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the compensation settlement was final and binding. No evidence supported the claim of promised sites. However, the court strongly criticised the long delay in completing the BMIC Project and directed the State Government to review the project and consider fresh planning.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.