Karnataka High Court stays grant of land for Dr Vishnuvardhan’s samadhi
BENGALURU: Just moments after Chief Minister Siddaramaiah laid the foundation stone for the Dr Vishnuvardhan Memorial on the actor’s fifth death anniversary at Mylasandra near Kengeri on Tuesday, the Karnataka High Court stayed a notification granting the land for the memorial.
The high court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Mr Sharath Babu, an Environment Advisor and Wildlife Warden (BBMP Forest Cell), and two others.
The petitioners had filed the PIL challenging the notification issued on March 4, 2014 by the Revenue Department acting through its Principal Secretary to grant an extent of two acres of land in Survey No. 22 of Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk to build a memorial for late Dr Vishnuvardhan, the iconic Kannada actor.
The advocate for the petitioners submitted that the notification violated a Supreme Court order, arguing that the land in question is within 100 metres (buffer zone) of and adjacent to a reserved forest and is therefore, in violation of Rule 41(2) of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 and further violates 41(1) of the Rules as no concurrence has been obtained by the Deputy Conservator of Forest.
Following the submission, the division bench of Justices A.N. Venugopala Gowda and B.V. Nagarathna stayed the notification till next date of hearing, making it clear to the authorities to maintain a status quo and that no trees should be cut till the next hearing.
The petitioners argued that the land was granted for the memorial despite objections raised by the Forest Department.
“The 2-acre land adjoining a forest land - Sy.No.22 of Mylasandra village is a land that measures around 109.05 acres. Of this, 79.20 acres is a forest land and it is not in dispute that these 2 acres of land is shown in the records as falling outside the 79.20 acres of forest land.
Unfortunately, the Revenue Department appears to have thought that merely because the 2 acres of land falls outside the forest land, it is free to grant it for a non-forest purpose.
Nevertheless, the Forest Department has been repeatedly bringing to the notice of the Revenue Department through several letters to inform it that they are thoroughly mistaken in assuming as much,” the petitioners argued.
