BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has declared that certain provisions of the 2022 Way Leave Policy (WLP) of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) are unconstitutional and unenforceable against any owner of land whose direct access or frontage was lost because of acquisition for the metro project.
The High Court issued a series of directions for BMRCL to follow in future cases involving acquisition of private land for metro projects, particularly where the acquisition or construction may affect access to or the ordinary use of the remaining property.
“Whenever BMRCL proposes to acquire land or undertake construction that may affect access to, or the ordinary use of, the remaining property, it shall identify the likely consequences for that property at the planning and implementation stages," said the court.
"The assessment shall, as relevant to the site, consider existing ingress and egress, access for vehicles and emergency services, the availability of water, electricity and sanitation, and any other essential facility that may be affected by the proposed works”, the court added.
This is one among the several directions issued by Justice Suraj Govindaraj while partly allowing the petition filed by M/s Ellis Fashion Exports Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director Jitendra D Majethia, seeking directions for BMRCL on issues such as ingress, egress, water connectivity, electricity installation and sewage lines, etc., on the remaining property available after part of it was acquired for a metro station on Kanakapura Road in the city.
The court criticised BMRCL, saying that the consequences of acquisition cannot be assessed by considering only the extent of land taken over an directed the BMRCL to take steps to implement the directions issued in the order concerning the petitioner and pay costs of Rs 10 lakhs to the petitioner.
The court directed the BMRCL to inspect the site, consult the affected owner and consider a workable arrangement before the existing access or services are disrupted.
The assessment and proposed solution shall be recorded in writing. The purpose is to identify and address the consequences for the remaining property in a timely manner, rather than leave the owner to seek a remedy after deprivation has occurred.
While considering a request for replacement access, BMRCL shall distinguish between a request for additional or more convenient access and a request made necessary because the original access or frontage has been lost owing to its acquisition or construction activities.
BMRCL shall consider actual site conditions, the use and configuration of the remaining property, the availability of alternative access, relevant safety and operational requirements, applicable building bye-laws, the National Building Code, Fire and Emergency Services requirements and other applicable regulatory requirements.
BMRCL shall give due effect to the provisions of its WLP that require consideration of individual circumstances, site inspection and a decision on the merits, including the procedure for cases not specifically covered by the policy, excluding the provisions declared invalid or unenforceable in this judgment
Where utility routes are likely to be affected, BMRCL shall coordinate, as necessary, with the relevant service providers and the affected owner to identify a workable arrangement for continuity or restoration of essential services at the earliest, without any delay.
If BMRCL considers that effective replacement access cannot reasonably or lawfully be provided, it shall communicate its reasons to the affected owner and consider, in accordance with applicable law, whether acquisition of the remaining property or another lawful solution is appropriate.
An owner whose property has been left without access or effective access shall not be kept indefinitely in uncertainty while the authority neither provides a workable solution nor takes a reasoned decision on the available alternatives.