R. NARAYANA SWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have raised the challenge to the first respondent's order, dated 27.12.2010 (Annexure-P) withdrawing the de-notification, dated 13.01.2010 in respect of the lands in question. The facts of the case in brief are that the preliminary and final notifications were issued on 03.03.1977 and 02.08.1978 respectively for the acquisition of the lands in question and other lands for the formation of Rajmahal Vilas Extension II Stage Layout. The petitioners claim that the possession of the lands in question remained with their owners, as the scheme was not implemented. The Government issued the notification, dated 13.01.2010 (Annexure-M) in favour of the petitioner No. 2 withdrawing the lands in question from acquisition, in exercise of its power conferred by Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (the said 'Act' for short). The second petitioner sold the lands to the first petitioner by a registered sale deed, dated 02.07.2010. However, the Government issued the cancellation notification, dated 27.12.2010 (Annexure-P). The said impugned notification states that on reconsidering the matter, the earlier notification, dated 13.01.2010 dropping the acquisition proceedings is cancelled with immediate effect. The reason given for reconsidering the matter and issuing the impugned cancellation notification is that the layout is formed and the sites are allotted.

(2.) It is this cancellation notification, which is being assailed by Sri Udaya Holla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri K. Suman for the petitioners.

(3.) Sri Udaya Holla submits that the petitioners are the bonafide purchasers of the properties in question. The due diligence exercises were also undertaken by and on behalf of the first petitioner. A public notice was issued by the first petitioner's advocate calling for the objections, if any, to the proposed sale of the properties from the petitioner No. 2. No objections whatsoever are filed by anybody. He would particularly state that neither the Government nor the BDA nor the impleading applicants have filed any objections. He submits that the petitioner No. 1 purchased the property by a registered sale deed executed on 02.07.2010. At that time, the status of the land acquisition was that the lands were freed from the acquisition proceedings.