S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of four review petitions preferred in respect of a common judgment delivered in W.P.(C) No.4841/2016 and connected cases. This Court had in the said judgment (hereafter referred to as “the main judgment”) upheld the rejection and a request made by the present petitioners that the acquired lands should be de-notified under Section 48 of the (now repealed) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as “the old Act”).

2. The facts that led to the filing of the writ petition do not need to be recounted except to say that the petitioners had approached the Court on an earlier occasion challenging the acquisition made through Section 4 notification, issued on 21.03.2003. The grievance urged in those proceedings was that the acquisition was motivated by mala fides because public lands which had been acquired for purposes of development were encroached upon by influential people and that the respondent authorities were unable to clear the encroachment as a result of which the petitioners’ lands were subsequently notified for acquisition. The writ petitions were disposed of by granting liberty to the land-owners (who had approached the Court i.e. the Resident Welfare Association concerned) to approach the competent authorities i.e. the Lt. Governor with a request for de-notifying their lands from acquisition.

3. The order of the Court (in W.P.(C) No.5401/2010) in this regard dated 13.10.2011 reads as follows:

“After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he is satisfied if his representation under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (for short, “the said Act”) at pages 50 to 61 is examined and a reasoned decision is taken after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He further prays that, in the meantime, the interim orders must continue to enure for the benefit of the petitioners.

Learned counsel further states that some subsequent facts have also come to the notice of the petitioners including the fact of absence of any change in the Master Plan and, thus, he would like to file an additional representation.

In view of the aforesaid prayer, we consider it appropriate that the petitioners should file a comprehensive representation under Section 48 of the said Act within 4 weeks from today. The De-notification Committee examining the matter will consider the representation on merits and take a reasoned decision after giving an opportunity to the representative of the petitioners to explain their stand. Such an order is being passed in the peculiar facts of the present case for the reason that there was land earlier acquired including for the purpose of the road in 2003, but the land of the petitioners was sought to be acquired in 2009 on account of re-alignment of the road ostensibly on the ground that some Lal Dora area was required to be saved. It is the further say of the petitioners that there is unauthorized occupation of the land earlier acquired, which is causing the diversion of the road and that too at the behest of an influential person.

The interim order dated 11.08.2011 made absolute on 25.04.2011 would continue to enure for the benefit of the petitioners till such time a decision is taken on the application and communicated to the petitioners and for a period of 15 days thereafter so that in case of an adverse decision, the petitioners are not left remedyless.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Dasti to learned counsel for the parties.”

4. The main judgment considered the grievance of the writ petitioners articulated in a fresh round of litigation i.e. that the appropriate Government and the Lt. Governor failed to comply with the principles of natural justice and did not grant any opportunity of hearing. The Court also considered and rejected the argument that plans were modified only with a view to accommodate encroachers. Based upon the records which were produced and the appreci