Belagavi City Corporation has decided to compensate individuals who have lost land or suffered property damage due to road construction, widening, or demolition projects. This decision was made during a special meeting of the urban local body in Belagavi on Tuesday, following a directive from the High Court of Karnataka in Dharwad. The court has ordered the corporation to deposit ₹20 crore with the special land acquisition officer before Thursday, before the next scheduled hearing.
Mayor Savita Kamble emphasized the situation’s urgency, instructing officers to ensure the payment of ₹20 crore to avoid any judicial repercussions with the Assistant Commissioner’s office who is the designated Land acquisition officer. Despite resistance from opposition members, Mayor Kamble stood firm on her decision.
The Chief Accounts Officer has informed that only 39.92 crore rupees remain in the treasury of the Belagavi City corporation. At one time, Belagavi City Corporation was the wealthiest in the state, with deposits totalling 400 crore rupees. However, the financial condition of the Corporation has since deteriorated. Currently, 8.8 crore rupees are required every month to operate the city corporation, and there is also a pending GST payment of 8 lakh rupees from the City corporation.
The case primarily revolves around the land, which was acquired to be part of the 560 mt road connecting Bank of India Circle to Od PB Road, which lost approximately 50 guntas of land valued at around ₹18 crore. Patil claimed that the corporation seized his land without consent or compensation. Although Belagavi Smart City Limited initiated road widening on the property, Patil’s requests for compensation were ignored, prompting him to seek legal recourse. The court awarded him compensation, but the delay in payment led him to file a contempt petition.
Corporation Commissioner Ashok Dudagunti elaborated on the legal proceedings, stating that the court had issued strict instructions to deposit the compensation amount, leaving the corporation with no alternative but to comply.
Belagavi Smart City Ltd. managing director S. Afreen Banu Ballari clarified that all construction activities were conducted with appropriate approvals and no objection letters from a local advisory committee that included MLAs and other elected representatives.
During the meeting, a majority of the corporation members opposed the compensation decision, arguing that these projects were approved when no elected body was in place, and decisions were made by local legislators and officials. Member Muzammil Doni pointed out that land for the road construction was acquired without an elected corporation, suggesting collusion among local officials and legislators.
MLA Asif (Raju) Sait proposed that the corporation request a one-year extension from the court to pay the full compensation amount, citing insufficient funds for flood rehabilitation and city development. He warned that compensating for similar cases could cost the corporation between ₹150 crore and ₹200 crore, a significant financial strain.
However, this decision was far from unanimous. The opposition group demanded that their objections be formally recorded in the meeting minutes. The Mayor’s decision sparked confusion in the House, leading to a brief period of disorder, with verbal clashes erupting between members of the ruling and opposition groups.
After the special meeting was stalled for nearly three hours, members from both sides held a private discussion in MLA Raju Sait’s office regarding the ₹20 crore compensation. During this private meeting, it was agreed that the corporation should request a one-year extension to pay the remaining amount after an initial payment of ₹5 crore. However, when this proposal was brought back to the ruling group’s meeting, some councillors opposed it.
Instead, the majority of the ruling group councillors agreed to pass a resolution granting the commissioner full authority to make decisions on this matter. The Mayor ordered that the commissioner should act by the court’s orders and legal guidelines. Essentially, the commissioner was given the power to determine the payment amount. Nevertheless, this decision was met with strong objections from MLA Sait’s opposition group.