SBI Term Loan: RLLR: 8.15 | 7.25% - 8.45%
Canara Bank: RLLR: 8 | 7.15% - 10%
ICICI Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.5% - 9.65%
Punjab & Sind Bank: RLLR: 7.3 | 7.3% - 10.7%
Bank of Baroda: RLLR: 7.9 | 7.2% - 8.95%
Federal Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.75% - 10%
IndusInd Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.5% - 9.75%
Bank of Maharashtra: RLLR: 8.05 | 7.1% - 9.15%
Yes Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.4% - 10.54%
Karur Vysya Bank: RLLR: 8.8 | 8.5% - 10.65%

Karnataka minister disputes Kumaraswamy's claims on HMT forest land encroachment near Bengaluru

#Law & Policy#Land#India#Karnataka
Synopsis

Karnataka Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Minister Shri Eshwar Khandre has dismissed allegations by Union Minister Shri H D Kumaraswamy that the state Forest Department encroached on HMT land in Bengaluru to facilitate real estate development. Shri Khandre maintained that HMT itself had encroached on non-diversified forest land and sold roughly 165 acres for INR 300 crore. He said eviction orders already issued rule out further commercial use, and reiterated plans for a 444-acre biodiversity park larger than Lalbagh and Cubbon Park combined.

Karnataka's Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Minister, Shri Eshwar Khandre, has rejected accusations levelled by Union Minister for Steel and Heavy Industries Shri H D Kumaraswamy, who had claimed that the state Forest Department encroached upon land held by Hindustan Machine Tools (HMT) in Bengaluru to enable real estate development. Speaking to reporters in Bengaluru this week, Shri Khandre said the allegation was baseless, asserting that it was the central public sector undertaking, HMT, and not the Forest Department, that had encroached on non-diversified forest land and subsequently sold portions of it to private real estate firms. He added that with eviction orders already issued for the recovery of the forest land, there was no longer any scope for commercial or real estate activity on the site, and clarified that once land is cleared under Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, it could not lawfully be diverted for real estate purposes. 
Shri Khandre also disclosed that certain officials had earlier filed an intervention application before the Supreme Court seeking de-notification of the forest land under HMT's possession, without securing approval from the Chief Secretary-led committee, the Forest Minister, or the state Cabinet. He said those officials had since been suspended and issued show-cause notices, and that the state government had obtained Cabinet approval to withdraw the intervention application, subsequently approaching the court to that effect. On the legal status of the land, he said that under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, any forest land that had not been formally diverted continued to remain classified as forest, a position he said had also been upheld by the Supreme Court, meaning the HMT land would retain its forest status regardless of Shri Kumaraswamy's contention that the site held only buildings. 
The minister said he had personally inspected the area with officials and had been received by HMT staff, which he cited as evidence against claims of trespass. He alleged that HMT had sold around 165 acres of the land for approximately INR 300 crore, and was continuing to use forest land for commercial purposes illegally, inviting Shri Kumaraswamy to visit the site to verify the claim independently. 
Describing the HMT forest land as belonging to the people of Karnataka, Shri Khandre called it an important green cover for Bengaluru and reiterated the state's stated intention to develop a biodiversity park spanning 444 acres, which he said would be larger than the combined area of Lalbagh Botanical Garden and Cubbon Park. He further referenced the case of families displaced by the Sharavathi project, who he said remained without land rights because the land allotted to them in the 1950s had been designated as forest without formal diversion, noting that even after de-notification during the previous Chief Minister Shri Siddaramaiah-led government's tenure, courts had ruled such action impermissible after 1980. On this basis, he concluded, any sale of HMT land to real estate firms would itself constitute an illegal transaction. 
Shri Kumaraswamy had earlier criticised Shri Khandre's administrative note directing the Forest Department to recover 281 acres from HMT, citing historical land-grant documents and questioning the timing and basis of the minister's intervention. 
Source PTI

Discussion

Have something to say? Post your comment