IMPORTANT POINT
Denotification and rescinding orders in land acquisition must be gazetted to protect stakeholders' rights and ensure transparency in the acquisition process.

JUDGMENT :

This intra court appeal by the BDA & its SLAO seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 23.04.2016 whereby the acquisition process came to be set at naught in the light of the order made by another learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32186/2010 (LA-BDA) & connected cases between Sri R.Shankaran vs. State of Karnataka & others, disposed off on 11.07.2014. However, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1783/2014 & connected appeals had stayed the above order and therefore, no relief could have been granted to the writ petitioner. The said Writ Appeal subsequently came to be allowed vide order dated 22.02.2024 and the lead judgment dated 11.07.2014 itself has been set at naught.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submits that the subject lands were ordered to be left out from the acquisition process vide Denotification dated 29.09.2010 without notice to his clients. He concedes that it was gazetted duly. Subsequently, the government vide order dated 19.10.2010 rescinded the Denotification on the ground that the appellant, a stakeholder was not heard in the matter. This rescinding order was not gazetted, for reasons best known to the government, although such a course gives rise to certain speculations. He in all fairness submits that in view of a Coordinate Bench voiding the lead judgment dated 11.07.2014, the impugned order passed in terms thereof, needs to be set aside and matter be remitted to the government for consideration u/s 48(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 inasmuch as the land owners were not heard in the matter before rescinding the Denotification. He hastens to add that the appellants being the buyers post rescinding order vide sale deed dated 1.12.2011, they do not have any locus at all.

3. Learned HCGP appearing for the government maintains equi-distance between the appellants on the one side and the private respondents on the other. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent argues that her client had acted upon the Denotification dated 29.09.2010 and after making due enquiry, bought the land with no notice of order rescinding the Denotification. She further submits that this rescinding order was never gazetted, nor published in any newspaper nor was publicized by attaching a copy thereof to a village chawdi. So contending, he repels the submission of Panel Counsel for the appellants that the private respondent do not have locus standi to lay a challenge to the rescinding order of Denotification. She makes submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to grant limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

(A) The Preliminary Notification for the acquisition of the lands in question admeasuring 4,043 Acres & 31 Guntas in various villages was issued for the formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda layout in Bangalore. Petition lands comprise of 2 Acres & 10 Guntas in Sy.No.45/2 and 2 Acres & 33 Guntas in Sy.No.40/1 of Challaghatta village. The objections were filed by the interested persons to the proposed acquisition that was followed by the issuance of Final Notification. However, a learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of cases in W.P.No.32186/2010 between Sri.R.Shankaran vs. The State of Karnataka and etc., had handed the judgment dated 11.07.2014 quashing the acquisition of the entire land which did not include the land comprised in this appeal. In terms of said judgment, the impugned order also has been made quashing acquisition of the two pieces of lands belonging to the private respondent. However, the lead judgment dated 11.07.2014 itself has been set at naught by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 22.02.2024 in W.A.No.1783/2014 & connected appeals. We fail to understand how the learned Single Judge would have allowed the writ petition in terms of