BENGALURU: The recent takeover of five acres of vacant land owned by HMT Company at Jalahalli in Bangalore has ignited a firestorm of controversy, drawing sharp criticism from Union Minister for Heavy Industries and Steel, HD Kumaraswamy. Outraged by what he perceives as unjust actions by the state Congress government, Kumaraswamy has vowed to pursue legal measures against the seizure, predicting that the state government will face significant setbacks as a result.
In a press briefing held shortly after the incident, Kumaraswamy expressed his determination, stating, “Legal action will be taken against the seizure of HMT land. In this, the state government will surely suffer setbacks.” He did not hold back in directing his ire toward the government, specifically targeting a former speaker from Srinivasapur, whom he accused of looting hundreds of acres of forest land. “Let Minister Ishwar Khandre look into that first. They have put the chair down and sat on the verdict given by the court. Let’s see how many acres have been looted there,” he asserted, highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the government’s enforcement of land use laws.
The controversy reached a boiling point on Friday, October 25 when officials from the Bangalore City Zone of the Forest Department conducted a significant operation at Peenya-Jalahalli Survey No. 1, an area previously under HMT’s control. During this operation, the Forest Department seized the five acres of land and erected a Karnataka Forest Department board on the site to publicly assert their claim. Minister Ishwara Khandre defended the action, stating that the land in question has not been converted for non-forest purposes and thus qualifies as forest land under the Supreme Court’s ruling that “once a forest, always a forest.”
Khandre elaborated that the contested land is part of a larger 599-acre forest area in the Jalahalli Plantation, which has now been officially reclaimed by the Forest Department. “About ₹150 crores worth of property was previously in the possession of HMT. The Forest Department has now taken control of this land,” Khandre confirmed, reinforcing the government’s commitment to restoring and preserving forest land around HMT.
This land seizure has led to a tense standoff between HMT officials and the Forest Department, with both sides asserting their claims to the contested property. The Forest Department, bolstered by Khandre’s directives, has vowed to not only reclaim but also expand Bangalore’s green cover by taking control of this land. “Today, we reclaimed five acres of forest land in Peenya Plantation to increase the green area in Bangalore,” Khandre tweeted, revealing plans to develop a large park akin to the famed Lalbagh and Cubbon Parks. This initiative is framed as a necessary effort to enhance environmental sustainability and provide a cleaner, greener space for the residents of North Bengaluru.
Despite the government’s assurances and environmental rhetoric, Kumaraswamy’s allegations suggest a more profound issue of corruption and mismanagement within the state administration. He challenged the legitimacy of the government’s actions, raising pertinent questions about how such a large-scale appropriation could transpire without adequate oversight. “The chair they sit on is not above the law; they must answer for their actions,” he warned, implying that those in power are not held accountable for their decisions.
As tensions escalate between HMT and the Karnataka government, this incident reflects ongoing disputes over land use and environmental management in the region. The dynamics are further complicated by allegations of corruption and misappropriation, painting a picture of a contentious relationship between the state government and HMT. This confrontation is likely to evolve, and the legal battles ensuing from this incident will be critical in determining the future of both entities.
As the situation develops, the repercussions of these allegations could have far-reaching effects on the political landscape of Karnataka, raising questions about governance, accountability, and environmental stewardship. Observers and stakeholders will be keenly watching how the legal framework addresses these issues and whether the state government can uphold its commitments to transparency and environmental integrity in the face of mounting criticism. The conflict appears far from over, with both sides poised for an extended battle over the contested land, which may set precedents for future land use and environmental policies in the region.
Comments