K Sukumaran vs State Of Karnataka on 15 June, 2011
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula
that the suit land and theethehf 1a.nd.:3:
mea for BMIC project. has&VAaata.fed"tl:_1at 'thev-.(}e{Iernment
aeeorded
material placed on record, so far as the BMIC
project; the purpose for which it was approyjer_;:l_"rhas
reached finality defining the said ... State of Karnataka and the project
awe I
20
proponent to execute and implement infrastructure
corridor project styled as BMIC project was4bel:d..Vas
legal
petitioners have no serious
chailengel'.V-to the very BMIC project and the development
worli according to them they are entitled to retain ... fcompleted by
constructing'tlieppipperiipherai road--§_"--a,_.ctj=n1ponent of BMIC
project.
1., _ci1_aii----erige the writ petitions on the
ground that
State. So far as the BMIC project' it is an
iiiitegrateé iiifraetrtieture deveiepmerit progeet. This
1?
integrated project involves numerous development
iiifrastruettire activities ... truck terminals is propose'?i."u.ndee1;
.£"
BMIC project. Definitely, this:~'teri-ninal oi;
large truck area than what
respondent and the GoVeinn'i.en:t Kernataka. The BMIC
Project consists__ of A hf way between
Bangalore anti
suffers
wiiirorn vagueness as the purpose for which the lands are
c
project proponent.
V' * '_ e.o_rr"eq:spondence ... township at Bidadi as BMIC_v'project'-and _atdditi'ona.1«';iand'V.2'
at UM. Kaval
3lAere,/ lghateclexe in the said netifieatiens for BMIC
gérejeeig the propertiee referred is is} the notifieaiiens
were not cone/lueive as it was only tentati ... perverse and illegal. According to them,
keening lniind the interest of the project as well as the
ptibli'<:, __A'1~the demetifieations
land alone is not singled out as
contended by the petitioners. The project is
implemented as originally conceived without». any
deviation.
4. According ... Constitution. The-tand in question: is required for
the project which is a public purpose. which is up-held
by the Ap ox ; Court