ORDER

1. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore dated 29.3.2005 in Writ Appeal No.4947 of 2002. Though the issue lies in a narrow compass as to the power of writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution to correct certain errors which is quite apparent on the face of the record though not specifically challenged by a party, in order to appreciate the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.8.2002 which sought to remedy the manifest injustice by setting aside a notification passed under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 27.6.2000 without any specific challenge to the said Notification.

2. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge on the sole ground that there was no specific challenge to the Notification dated 27.6.2000. To appreciate the points raised, it is necessary to refer to the basic facts in a brief account.

3. There was a preliminary Notification dated 21.9.1967 under the provisions of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 (Mysore Act V of 1945) which is analogous to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. By the said notification, there was a proposal to acquire survey No.57 of Thippasandra Village, K.R. Puram Hobli by the Government for the formation of a layout called HAL, second stage layout by the appellant herein. The final notification was issued on 15.7.1971 under the same Act purported to be one under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.

4. Award was, however, passed by the Acquisition Authority on 21.11.1983 and the same was approved on 29.11.1983 for Rs.58,426,25. Compensation was paid under the Mahazar dated 09.12.1983 and the possession was taken and handed over to the Engineering Section on the same date. After the final notification dated 15.7.1971 and six months prior to the award dated 21.11.1983, the land was sold by the original owners, namely, A. Thimma Reddy and Muniswamappa on 27.5.1983 to the vendors of the contesting respondent. The petitioner therein (respondent No.1 herein) purchased the land in question under two sale deeds on 28.1.1995. The acquisition was stated to have been de-notified under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act bynotification dated 05.10.1999. By order dated 27.6.2000 impugned in the writ petition, the said de-notification dated 05.10.1999 was recalled. The said order dated 27.6.2000 was the subject matter of challenge of the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein in WP 2565/2001.

5. By the order dated 26.8.2002, the learned Single Judge, after holding that there is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act for recalling the order passed under Section 48(1) of the Act also proceeded to hold that in any event the Notification dated 05.10.1999 for certain specified reasons had to be declared as non est in law and struck down the said notification which sought to de-notify the acquisition which became final and conclusive as on 09.12.1983 (i.e.), sixteen years after the acquisition became final.

6. In the appeal preferred by the appellant, the Division Bench while affirming the order of the learned Single Judge, insofar as it related to the setting aside of the recalling of the de-notification dated 27.6.2000, however, held that the Single Judge was not legally justified in setting aside the de-notification itself dated 05.10.1999.

7. We heard Mr. Altaf Ahmad learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. P.V. Shetty, learned senior counsel for the first respondent and learned counsel for the parties. We also perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge, as well as, that of the Division Bench and we are convinced that the judgment of the Division Bench impugned in this appeal deserves to be set aside.

8. As the facts are not in dispute, as stated in the opening paragraph the short question for consideration is, in the absence of a challenge to the de-notification dated 05.10.1999 whether the Single Judge was justified