High Court Quashes Land Acquisition Near Protected Hampi Monuments

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has ruled against the government's decision to acquire seven acres of land for infrastructure development near the protected Ugra Narasimha and Badavilinga temples in Hampi in Vijayanagara district. Justice Sachin Shankar presided over the case, which stemmed from petitions filed in 2007 by Hampi resident Viranna and others. These petitions challenged the acquisition of land located in various survey numbers within Krishnapura and Kamalapura villages of Hosapete taluk.

The land , which had previously acquired in 2006, was canceled by the High Court . The land in question serves as the livelihood for underprivileged farmers, and the High Court found no ethical grounds for its acquisition. The court contended that since the land was acquired for the beautification of national monuments, the applicants were entitled to a hearing to file their objections. According to the bench, this land could not be acquired under emergency conditions.

In accordance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the law mandates the hearing of objections in such cases. However, the bench ruled that the government's decision to acquire the land by invoking the emergency provision under Section 17 of the Act, and subsequently reversing it, was made with malicious intent. The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the provisions of the law, including emergency clauses, by government authorities. The bench concluded that there was no evidence to support the application of the emergency clause in this particular case.

The land, located across various survey numbers in Krishnapura and Kamalapura villages, was acquired by the state government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The government contended that this acquisition was essential to facilitate access to the temples. The petitioners, however, maintained that they relied on this agricultural land for their livelihoods. They argued that the government's unilateral decision to acquire the land, without affording them an opportunity to voice their objections as per established rules, constituted an illegal action without any real urgency.