Farmers win legal battle over land

The Supreme Court has directed Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society (VHBCS) to surrender 165 acres and 30 guntas to farmers, who have been fighting the state government against the acquisition of their land for more than 20 years.

A division bench comprising justices GS Singhvi and Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, on February 7, directed the society to surrender 165 acres and 30 guntas at Nagavara and other villages.

The top court dismissed the re-acquisition notification issued by the state government in favour of the society and set aside the high court’s order backing the society.

The court directed the society to return the land to the farmers.

However, it ruled that relief was not applicable to those who had withdrawn their special leave petition in the interim.

The state government had acquired more than 165 acres at Nagavara and other villages between 1984 and 1986 for the society.

Later, the farmers moved the high court questioning the acquisition.

“We are very happy with the Supreme Court judgment. We got justice after a long battle with the state government,” said Umesh Nanjappa, president of Nagavara and Govindapura farmers’ land protection committee.

Nanjappa said he would get back two acres that was acquired by the state government after paying him a paltry `80,000 per acre. “Now, 1 acre commands a price of `5 crore. Some farmers have already taken posession of their land. The Supreme Court judgment will benefit about 20 farmers,” said Nanjappa.

The society made headlines last year when it allotted a site to Dhavalagiri Properties, owned by former chief minister BS Yeddyurappa’s family and also allotting a site to justice Shivaraj Patil who later had to quit the post of lokayukta. The state government had superseded the society last October.

In a civil appeal between Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and the state government and others, justices GS Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly of the Supreme Court had said on February 2: “Keeping in view the fact that some of the members of the appellant may have built their houses on the sites allotted to them, we give liberty to the appellant to negotiate with the respondents for purchase of their land at the prevailing market price and hope that the landowners will, notwithstanding the judgments of the high court and this court, agree to accept the market price so that those who have built the houses may not suffer.”