Orders That Rescind Denotification Must Be Gazetted & Duly Publicized So That Unscrupulous Land Owners Won’t Prey Potential Buyers: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court emphasised that the orders that rescind the Denotification must be gazetted and duly publicized so that the unscrupulous land owners would not prey the potential buyers based on the Denotification.
The Court was dealing with a writ appeal filed by Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), challenging the order of the Single Judge by which the acquisition process was set at naught in the light of the order made by another Single Judge.
A Division Bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar observed, “It has now been well settled vide decision of the Apex Court in MUDA vs. VEER KUMAR JAIN & OTHERS, (2010) 5 SCC 791 that Denotification of acquisition of lands has to be gazetted so that those who are stakeholders in the acquisition may lay a challenge thereto. On the similar line, the orders that rescind the Denotification also should be gazetted and duly publicized, so that the unscrupulous land owners would not prey the potential buyers on the basis of Denotification and keeping them in darkness of orders rescinding the Denotification. An argument to the contrary would imperil the interest of innocent buyers of the lands in acquisition which were otherwise denotified, but later there is a cancellation of such Denotification.”
Advocate K. Krishna appeared on behalf of the appellants while HCGP Spoorthi Hegde appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In this case, the subject lands were ordered to be left out from the acquisition process vide Denotification without notice to the appellants. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the said Denotification was gazetted duly and subsequently, the government rescinded the same on the ground that the appellant, a stakeholder was not heard in the matter. This rescinding order was not gazetted.
A Coordinate Bench had stayed the order of the Single Judge and therefore, no relief was granted to the writ petitioner. As a result, the writ appeal subsequently was allowed vide an order and the lead judgment itself was set at naught. Hence, the counsel for the appellants prayed that the matter be remitted to the government for consideration under Section 48(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894, inasmuch as the land owners were not heard in the matter before rescinding the Denotification.
The High Court after hearing the arguments of parties noted, “… the Denotification was issued on 29.09.2010 in exercise of power availing u/s 48(1) of the 1894 Act. This was done without notice to the appellants herein who happen to be the beneficiaries of acquisition. Law is now well settled that the beneficiaries need to be heard before halting the acquisition process once for all inasmuch as such a Denotification would make land owners title cloud free as if there was no acquisition process.”
The Court further noted that no material was produced before it that the writ petitioner who happens to be the private respondent herein, bought the subject lands knowing fully well about the rescinding order and therefore, presumption of notice would arise in respect of gazetted orders and conversely, no presumption would arise of such notice where gazetted orders are rescinded by orders that are not gazetted.
“That being the position, the argument that those who bought the land subsequent to rescinding of Denotification have no locus standi to maintain a writ petition, is liable to be rejected, especially when they entered into transaction after reasonable enquiry”, it added.
The Court said that the matter should be remitted to the government for fresh consideration as to whether the lands should be excluded from the fray of acquisition inasmuch as Denotification was issued without hearing the appellants and subsequently, the same was cancelled by the rescinding order that was made without hearing the land owners.
“Only this course of remand would bring about a just result to the stakeholders. It is also open to the respondent-buyers of the subject lands to take benefit of the Division Bench judgment which we have referred to above, if their claims fit into the parameters prescribed therein. Other terms & conditions mentioned in the said judgment govern their claim”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Single Judge, quashed the Denotification and Rescinding order, and remitted the matter to the portals of Government.
Cause Title- Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. v. Bhagyalakshmi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:21615-DB)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocate K. Krishna
Respondents: HCGP Spoorthi Hegde, Advocates S.R. Shivaprakash and A.D. Sangeetha.
