Judge: Cycle, not Metro, is the way out

Instead of Namma Metro, the state government should have adopted China’s model of development by providing bicycles to the public, as it would not only lessen the traffic congestion, but also improve the public health, the high court of Karnataka observed on Tuesday.

While hearing a petition by Mahesh Chawla and others challenging the forceful acquisition of land for the proposed metro construction work at Jalahalli, justice DV Shylendra Kumar observed that if bicycles were provided to the people, it would have saved walking space currently being taken over for the metro.

The court directed the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited to furnish the sketch of  the rail tracks on January 6, 2011, when a similar case would come up for hearing. 

“Once I decided to walk to Chithrakala Parishat and it was like a circus, as there is no space for pedestrians. Besides, the traffic police themselves were helping vehicles to move on footpaths,” the justice recalled.

The petitioners contended that the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) had acquired 2,651.50 sq ft in survey numbers 11, 32 and 33 at Jalahalli near Peenya.

The petitioners submitted before the court that they owned an industrial plot close to the National Highway-4. Once the neighbouring lands were acquired, Chawla checked if his land was acquired too.

However, his land was acquired according to the preliminary notification, but he later found his property taken away without considering his objections to it.

While counsel for the Metro submitted the entire sketch of the plan, justice Kumar observed that the metro tracks suddenly seem to go off-track into some houses and shops. He also pointed out that there was already no space for pedestrians.
Justice Kumar further observed that the Metro should cause minimum inconvenience and hardship to the people.

The court also said that the KIADB should have conducted a clear survey or evaluation before acquiring land for the metro. The board did not have enough data to justify its acquisition of the land.

The petitioners appealed to the court to order the constitution of an appropriate committee to fix fair and reasonable compensation for the acquired land.

They argued that the compensation fixed by committees headed by Krishnappa and Thomas were abysmally low.