Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 404 (KAR)

Uma Shankar v. State of Karanataka

2012-04-20

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2012
ORDER Mohan Shantanagoudar J.—WP.Nos. 21186/2010 & 23885-895/2010 are filed praying for quashing the notification bearing No. NA,AAE-141, BEMAASE 2006, dated 13.11.2009, passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-AA produced along with the said writ petitions. As a consequential relief, the petitioner has prayed for a declaration to the effect that the notification dated 14.10.2009 (gazetted on 12.11.2009) vide Annexure-Y enures to the benefit of the petitioner. WP.Nos. 32919-32922/2009 and connected WP.Nos. 33654/2009 and 25859/2010 are filed by the allottees of the various sites by the respondent-BDA. They have sought for quashing the notification bearing No. UDD/141/MNJ/2006. Dated 14.10.2009 issued by the State Government vide Annexure-P filed along with WP.Nos. 32919-32922/2009. They have also sought for a direction to the respondent-BDA to issue absolute sale deeds in respect of the sites allotted in their favour. 2. The records reveal that about 180 acres of lands situated at Jakkasandra Village and adjoining Villages at Bangalore South Taluk were acquired by the then City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore by issuing preliminary notification dated 26.11.1959 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The same was published in the Official Gazette in the year 1960. The lands were acquired for formation of house sites and industrial sites. A further extent of 102 acres of land was acquired for the purpose of formation of St. John's Medical College. Final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act came to be issued on 28.9.1965 and the same was published in the Official Gazette on 7.10.1965. On 26.6.1969, the City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore passed a resolution resolving to reconvey 8 acres 21 guntas of the land comprised in Sy. Nos. 26/1, 36/6, 32/8, 32/9, 32/10 and 32/17 of Jakkasandra Village now known as Koramangala Extension, Bangalore South Taluk, as per Annexure-C. However, certain conditions were put on the petitioner, such as the cases pending in the Court should be withdrawn by the petitioner, etc. The petitioner replied by his letter dated 24.1.1972 that he was agreeable to the conditions imposed and that he would comply with the conditions. Ultimately, the letter dated 8/9.5.1972 vide Annexure-D came to be addressed by the City Improvement Trust Board to the petitioner intimating the City Improvement Trust Board's resolution dated 19.4.1972 resolving to convey the lands to an extent of 6 acres 20 guntas and 42 sq. yards. Ultimately, the letter dated 8/9.5.1972 vide Annexure-D came to be addressed by the City Improvement Trust Board to the petitioner intimating the City Improvement Trust Board's resolution dated 19.4.1972 resolving to convey the lands to an extent of 6 acres 20 guntas and 42 sq. yards. The survey numbers to be reconveyed to the petitioner were also mentioned in the said letter at Annexure-D. Under these circumstances, the petitioner preferred WP. No. 15487/1987 before this Court seeking direction to BDA to convey the land to an extent of 6 acres 21 guntas 42 sq.yards for use by the petitioner for industrial and residential purposes. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 3.4.1989 with a direction that the persons whose lands have been acquired could apply for a site and such applications would be considered. Being aggrieved by the said judgment passed in WP. No. 15487/1987, the petitioner filed WA. No. 727/1989, before the Division Bench of this Court. The said writ appeal also came to be dismissed. The petitioner herein took up the matter to the Apex Court in SLP. No. 9456/1989. Ultimately, the Apex Court remitted the matter to the Division Bench of this Court with a direction to hear WA. No. 727/1989 afresh on merits and in accordance with law by its order dated 31.1.2001. However, the interim order which was passed by this Court earlier restraining the respondents from making any construction on the land in question was allowed to remain in force till the disposal of WA. No. 727/1989 by this Court. The Division Bench of this Court after hearing WA. No. 727/1989 allowed the appeal on 10.7.2001 and directed the respondent-BDA to issue possession certificate to the petitioner within four months. The BDA filed SLP before the Apex Court in SLP. No. 164/2002 (CA. No. 971/2003). The Apex Court was pleased to allow the CA. No. 971/2003 and set aside the judgment passed in WA. No. 727/1989. The said judgment is reported in Bangalore Development Authority and Others Vs. R. Hanumaiah and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3631 . Copy of the judgment of the Apex Court is also produced at Annexure-H in WP. No. 21186 & 23885-23895/2010. Thus, the matter between the parties had reached finality by the order of the Apex Court. When the facts stood thus, the BDA Act, 1976 was amended by Karnataka Act. R. Hanumaiah and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3631 . Copy of the judgment of the Apex Court is also produced at Annexure-H in WP. No. 21186 & 23885-23895/2010. Thus, the matter between the parties had reached finality by the order of the Apex Court. When the facts stood thus, the BDA Act, 1976 was amended by Karnataka Act. No. 74/1994, consequent upon which, Sections 38B, 38C, 50, 64, 8 and 9 are inserted. The petitioner herein filed WP. No. 26826/2005, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 9 of BDA (Amendment Act 17/1994) and for other reliefs. In the said writ petition, an interim order came to be passed on 24.3.2009. The operative portion of which reads as under:- It is for the BDA and to Government to allot the land, which is available and fenced by the petitioners, i.e., to the extent of 61/2 acres the same could be allotted in favour of the petitioners or for better reasons, alternative land could be identified and allotted, which would be convenient to the petitioners. If any allotment sought to be made to other public in the area, alternative allotment may be made to these allottees elsewhere. A decision be taken to leave out the said land to the petitioners in lieu of the compensation which they are foregoing. Questioning the interim order dated 24.3.2009,. the BDA has filed WA. No. 1514-1515/2009. During the pendency of writ appeals, the State Government issued an order on 14.10.2009, denotifying the land to an extent of 6 acres 21 guntas, based on the aforementioned interim order as per the notification at Annexure-Y. In view of the said order of denotifying the land in question, the BDA chose to withdraw WA.Nos. 1514-1515/2009 by filing a memo dated 29.10.2006. A copy of the memo is produced at Annexure-W to the writ petitions. So also, the petitioner herein withdrew WP. No. 26826/2005 on 2.11.2009 in view of the order/notification dated 14.10.2009. After disposal of WP. No. 26826/2005 as withdrawn, the impugned order came to be passed as per Annexures-AA on 13.11.2009 withdrawing the denotification order dated 14.10.2009. The said order dated 13.11.2009 withdrawing the denotification order is questioned in WP.Nos. 21186/2001 & 23885-23895/2010. 3. No. 26826/2005 on 2.11.2009 in view of the order/notification dated 14.10.2009. After disposal of WP. No. 26826/2005 as withdrawn, the impugned order came to be passed as per Annexures-AA on 13.11.2009 withdrawing the denotification order dated 14.10.2009. The said order dated 13.11.2009 withdrawing the denotification order is questioned in WP.Nos. 21186/2001 & 23885-23895/2010. 3. Sri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner In W.P. No. 21186/2010 & W.P. 23885-895/2010 submits that withdrawing the order of de-notification is illegal inasmuch as the same is without notice to the petitioner; since the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice, the same is to be quashed; the area of about 6 acres de-notified constitutes over 2% of the whole area of the land acquired and that therefore the order of de-notification dated 14.10.2009 passed earlier in favour of the petitioner was in consonance with the conclusion reached by the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, JT (2010) 6 SC 57 in which the Apex Court has concluded that at least 15 to 20% of the land should be allowed to be retained by the landloser; the possession has remained with the petitioner and that therefore the scheme in respect of denotified 6 acres of land is not implemented; the order of de-notification was pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court in W.P. No. 26826/2005 dated 24.2.2009 and as the said order dated 24.3.2009 is not set aside subsequently, the order of de-notification was justified; since the order of de-notification was just and proper, it is not open for the State Government to withdraw the said de-notification order that too without hearing the petitioner. On these and other grounds, he prayed for quashing the impugned order. On these and other grounds, he prayed for quashing the impugned order. Sri Nanjundareddy, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of BDA submits that the order of de-notification itself was bad in the eye of law inasmuch as the land could not have been de-notified in favour of the petitioner in W.P. No. 21186/2010 & 23885-23895/2010 in view of the fact that the possession of the land in question was already taken long back by the State Government and that the lay-out is fully formed by the BDA; the State Government need not hear the petitioner while passing the impugned order inasmuch as by the impugned order, the State Government has merely withdrawn the void order of de-notification dated 14.10.2009; the order dated 14.10.2009 de-notifying the lands in question from acquisition was void ab initio inasmuch as the same was contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority and Others Vs. R. Hanumaiah and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3631 the said judgment was arising out of a matter to which the petitioner in W.P. No. 21186/2030 and connected matters and the respondents herein are parties; since the very question involved is already fully covered in the said judgment, it was not open for the State Government to de-notify the land contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in order to overcome the same and therefore the order of de-notification is void ab initio; the respective cases of the parties are already crystallized by virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Bangalore Development Authority and Others Vs. R. Hanumaiah and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3631 and therefore the order by the State Government de-notifying the lands in question is void ab initio: the interim order granted by this Court in W.P. 26826/2005 was questioned by the BDA in W.A. Nos. R. Hanumaiah and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3631 and therefore the order by the State Government de-notifying the lands in question is void ab initio: the interim order granted by this Court in W.P. 26826/2005 was questioned by the BDA in W.A. Nos. 1514-1515/2009 and the same was withdrawn by filing a memo dated 29.10.2009 in view of the fact that during the pendency of the writ petiton, the order of de-notification came to be passed by the State Government illegally; Hence it cannot be said that the interim order of this Court in W.P. No. 26826/2005 & connected matters was not questioned; The possession of the lands in question was taken long back i.e. prior to 1975 and therefore the order of de-notification dated 14.10.2009 issued by the State Government de-notifying the lands in question was contrary to law. Sri K.G. Sadashivaiah and Sri U. Shivakumar appearing on behalf of the allottees of sites in W.P. Nos. 32919-32922/2009 and 33654/2009 supported the aforementioned contentions taken by the BDA. They also oppose the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 21186/2010 & 23885-23895/2010 by contending that the order of de-notification dated 14.10.2009 is bad in the eye of law and consequently they have also sought for a direction to the BDA to execute absolute sale deeds in respect of the sites allotted in their favour. First prayer made in W.P. No. 32919-32922/2009 and W.P. 33654/2009 has become infructuous inasmuch as the petitioners therein have sought for quashing the order of de-notification dated 14.10.2009 issued by the State Government de-notifying the lands in question and the said order of de-notification is subsequently withdrawn by the State Government on 13.11.2009. However, the consequential prayers made in the said writ petitions will be considered separately. 4. It is not in dispute that the preliminary notification was issued by the State Government proposing to acquire various properties including the properties in question i.e. Sy. No. 26/1, 32/7, 32/8, 32/10, 32/11 and 32/12 for the formation of Koramangala residential lay-out and for the purpose of St. Johns Medical college. The final notification came to be issued on 28.9.1965 and the award came to be passed on 29.11.1966. Subsequently, the compensation is also paid. Possession of the aforementioned lands except the land bearing Sy. No. 26/1 was taken prior to 1975. However the possession of the land bearing Sy. Johns Medical college. The final notification came to be issued on 28.9.1965 and the award came to be passed on 29.11.1966. Subsequently, the compensation is also paid. Possession of the aforementioned lands except the land bearing Sy. No. 26/1 was taken prior to 1975. However the possession of the land bearing Sy. No. 26/1 was taken on 3.3.1975 and the notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 28.8.1975 pertaining to the land bearing Sy. No. 26/1. Thus it is clear that the possession of all the lands in question was taken prior to the year 1975. Thus it cannot be said that the possession of the land was not taken by the respondents 5. Though the submission of Sri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior advocate that the petitioner ought to have been notified and heard before passing the impugned order prima facie appears to be attractive, the same is unacceptable under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Mysore Urban Development Authority by its Commissioner Vs. Veer Kumar Jain and Others, JT (2010) 4 SC 63 relied upon by the petitioner's counsel has concluded thus: 20. We have already noticed above that the order dated 22.7.2002 is inextricably linked to the order dated 15.9.2001 which was invalid for the same reasons as the order dated 22.7.2002. Further, the order dated 22.7.2002 was passed to set right the violation of the principles of nature justice in making the order dated 15.9.2001. It is possible for us to hold that the order dated 22.7.2002 did not call for interference in exercise of power of judicial review, as it merely cancelled an earlier invalid order which was made without hearing MUDA. But that may prejudice the landowners as they would have no forum to put forth their request for denotification. 21. We are of the view that the relief should be moulded appropriately so that the landowners should also have an opportunity to put forth their grievance. Interests of justice would be served if both the Notifications dated 22.7.2002 and 15.9.2001 are set aside and the State Government is directed to consider the request of the landowners for withdrawal from acquisition afresh after giving due hearing to the landowners (and also the first respondent) and MUDA and then decide the matter in accordance with law. Interests of justice would be served if both the Notifications dated 22.7.2002 and 15.9.2001 are set aside and the State Government is directed to consider the request of the landowners for withdrawal from acquisition afresh after giving due hearing to the landowners (and also the first respondent) and MUDA and then decide the matter in accordance with law. In the said matter, neither the denotification order nor the subsequent order withdrawing the order of denotification did provide any notice to the affected parties. Under such circumstances, the Apex Court has ruled that the order of denotification as well as the subsequent order withdrawing the order of denotification are bad in the eye of law and that the matter should be decided afresh after giving opportunity to all the parties. In the matter on hand also, neither the order of de-.notification dated 14.10.2009 nor the order dated 13.11.2009 withdrawing the order of denotification were issued after notifying the affected parties. Therefore both the orders in normal course should have been set aside and the matter could have been sent back for consideration afresh on merits after affording opportunity of being heard to both the parties. But, the same may not be necessary in view of certain peculiar facts involved in these matters, which are as under: 7. After taking possession of the properties on various dates prior to 3.3.1975, the petitioner in W.P. No. 21186/2010 & 23885-23895/2010 started making representations for re-conveying the land in his favour. Nothing turned out till 1987. However the correspondence started from 15.4.1987 between the petitioner and the BDA. According to the petitioner, he was hoping to get the order of re-conveyance in his favour in the light of his correspondence with the BDA. However on 30.9.1987 the petitioner said to have received copies of the caveat petiton filed before this Court by which the he learnt that an extent of 6 acres 21 guntas 42 square yards situated in Sy Nos. 26/1, 32/7, 32/8, 32/10, 32/11 and 32/12 is already utilised for the formation of house sites and distributed to various members. The petitioner preferred W.P. No. 15487/87 before this Court on 15.10.1987 for a direction to the BDA to convey the land to an extent of 6 acres 21 guntas 42 square yards in his favour the purpose of industrial and residential purposes. The petitioner preferred W.P. No. 15487/87 before this Court on 15.10.1987 for a direction to the BDA to convey the land to an extent of 6 acres 21 guntas 42 square yards in his favour the purpose of industrial and residential purposes. On 3.4.1989 the said writ petiton came to be dismissed relying upon the judgments of this Court reported in ILR 1987 KAR 790 and ILR 1989 Kar 75 wherein this Court had directed that the persons whose lands had been acquired could apply for a site. Being aggrieved by the said judgment passed in W.P. No. 15487/87, the petitioner preferred W.A. No. 727/1989 before the Division Bench of this Court. The said appeal also came to be dismissed on 19.4.1989. The petitioner approached the Apex Court in SLP No. 9456/89 on 31.8.1989. Ultimately C.A. Nos. 5165/92 (arising out of SLP No. 9456/89) was allowed on 31.1.2001 and the matter was remitted to the Division Bench of this Court to dispose of the writ appeal afresh in accordance with law. After remand, this Court allowed W.A. No. 727/89 on 10.7.2001 and directed the second respondent to issue possession certificate to the petitioner. Questioning the said order, BDA preferred SLP No. 164/2002 (CA No. 971/2003) and the said Civil Appeal was allowed and the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 727/89 was set aside on 3.10.2005. The said judgment came to be reported in Bangalore Development Authority and Others Vs. R. Hanumaiah and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3631 . 8. It is also relevant to note certain observations made by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in Bangalore Development Authority and Others Vs. R. Hanumaiah and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3631 between the very parties. While deciding the said matter, the Apex Court has gone into each and every detail of the case including taking of possession and depositing of compensation. Even the correspondence between the petitioner and the BDA as well as certain resolutions passed by the then City Improvement Trust Board are also referred to in the said judgment in paragraphs 3,-4, 8 etc., After considering all the facts and various judgments of the Apex Court on the issue, observed thus: 46. The possession of the land in question was taken in the year 1966 after the passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. The possession of the land in question was taken in the year 1966 after the passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, the land vested in the Government which was then transferred to CITB, predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. After the vesting of the land and taking possession thereof, the notification for acquiring the land could not be withdrawn or cancelled in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. Power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act cannot be exercised after vesting of the land statutorily in the State Government. 47. The High Court also erred in holding that land acquisition process and the vesting process became incomplete since the landowners were asked to redeposit the amount of compensation. The High Court failed to take notice of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 31 contemplates that on making of an award under Section 11 the Collector shall tender amount of compensation awarded by him to the person interested and entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay to them unless preventedby any one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the subsequent clauses. None of those contingencies arose in the present case. Thus, once the amount was tendered and paid the acquisition process was complete. After making the award under Section 11 the Collector can take possession of the land under Section 16 which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. In the instant case, after making the payment in terms of the award, possession was taken. The acquisition process stood completed. The subsequent development will not alter the fact that the acquisition was complete. 55. It is not in dispute that Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act would apply to the acquisitions made under the 1976 Act and in that view of the matter the State could exercise its jurisdiction for re-conveyance of the property in favour of the owner thereof only in the event possession thereof had not been taken. Once such possession is taken even the State cannot direct to re-convey the property. Once such possession is taken even the State cannot direct to re-convey the property. It has been accepted before us that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act has no application but reliance has been sought to be placed on Section 65 of the 1976 Act which empowers the Government to issue such directions to the Authority as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purpose of the Act. The power of the State Government being circumscribed by the conditions precedent laid down therein, thus, the directions can be issued only when the same are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purpose of the Act. In a case of this nature, the State Government did not have any such jurisdiction and, thus, the Bangalore Development Authority has rightly refused to comply therewith. 61. We accept this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court as well as the directions issued by the State Government on the asking of the Chief Minister vide letter dated 12.7.2005 to BDA to reconvey the land measuring 6 acres, 20 guntas and 42 sq. yd to the 1st respondent. The judgment under appeal is set aside and that of the Single Judge is restored. The writ petiton is dismissed except to the extent that the 1st respondent would be entitled to reclaim the amount of compensation alongwith interest as indicated in the earlier paragraphs. Parties shall bear their own costs. 9. From the above, it is clear that the rights of the parties are fully settled by the highest Court of the country as far back as on 3.10.2005 by the judgment reported in Bangalore Development Authority and Others Vs. R. Hanumaiah and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3631 . The Apex Court has finally concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to order of re-conveyance inasmuch as possession was taken prior to 3.3.1975. The State cannot go behind the said order of the Apex Court. Under Article 141 of the Constitution, the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the country. Inspite of the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 26826/2005 questioning the constitutional validity of Section-9 of the BDA (Amendment Act 17/1994) and for certain other reliefs. Under Article 141 of the Constitution, the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the country. Inspite of the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 26826/2005 questioning the constitutional validity of Section-9 of the BDA (Amendment Act 17/1994) and for certain other reliefs. In the said writ petiton, the Court was prayed to decide the constitutional validity of Section-9 of the BDA (Amendment Act 17/1994). However an interim order came to be passed on 24.3.2009 in the said writ petiton directing the respondents to provide developed land to an extent of 6 acres 21 guntas. By the very interim order, the petitioner was also directed to file one more representation to the Government and the Government was directed to take decision in the matter within four months from the date of the said order. Being aggrieved by the said interim order dated 24.3.2009, the BDA filed W.A. Nos. 1514-1515/2009. During the pendency of the writ appeal, the State Government denotified the land in favour of the petitioner on 14.10.2009 based on the interim order granted by this Court in W.P. No. 26826/2005. In view of the order of denotification passed by the State Government, the BDA having no other go had to withdraw the writ appeal as the same had become infructuous by then. Subsequently by the impugned order, the order of denotification dated 14.10.2009 is withdrawn on 13.11.2009. 10. From the above, it is clear that the order or denotification dated 14.10.2009 itself is void ab initio inasmuch as the same was issued contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered between the same parties reported in Bangalore Development Authority and Others Vs. R. Hanumaiah and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3631 . Since the rights of the parties had crystallized finally by the order of the Apex Court in SLP No. 164/2002 reported in Bangalore Development Authority and Others Vs. R. Hanumaiah and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3631 , it is not open for the State Government to de-notify the lands in favour of the petitioner based on the subsequent interim order granted by this Court in W.P. No. 26826/2005. R. Hanumaiah and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3631 , it is not open for the State Government to de-notify the lands in favour of the petitioner based on the subsequent interim order granted by this Court in W.P. No. 26826/2005. State Government should not have hurried to de-notify the land during the pendency of W.A. No. 1514-15/2009 filed by BDA, Since the order of denotification itself was void and contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court, the same is rightly recalled by the State Government on 13.11.2009 by the impugned order. 11. In view of the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and as the order of denotification dated 14.10.2009 was void ab initio and contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered between the parties, subsequent order of the State Government recalling such a void order need not be preceded with an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The order of denotification being void and nonest in the eye of law, the same is nullity in the eye of law. Therefore there is no question of notifying the petitioner while recalling the void order. 12. The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened, the Court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case (see Judgment in the case of A.K. Kraipak and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1970 SC 150 . In the matter on hand, this Court does not find any ground to accept the contention of the petitioner that rules of natural justice require that the petitioner should have been heard before passing the impugned order under the facts and circumstances of this case. As aforementioned, the purpose of rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice. In the matter on hand, the State has set right the illegality committed by it. As aforementioned, the purpose of rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice. In the matter on hand, the State has set right the illegality committed by it. The State, by the impugned order has withdrawn the void order of denotification, which circumvent the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court between the very parties. 13. In the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of this Case, the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Mysore Urban Development Authority by its Commissioner Vs. Veer Kumar Jain and Others, JT (2010) 4 SC 63 may not be applicable. In the said matter, the order of denotification was not void ab initio. Under such circumstances, the Apex Court held that, while withdrawing the order of denotification the affected parties should have been heard. Whereas in the matter on hand, the order of denotification is void ab initio and therefore the petitioner cannot claim that he should have been heard in the matter while passing the impugned order recalling the order of denotification. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to argue that the petitioner is entitled for denotification of the lands in question on merits, the same cannot be considered in view of the settled position between the parties as found in the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Bangalore Development Authority and Others Vs. R. Hanumaiah and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3631 mentioned supra. Subsequent to the said judgment rendered by the Supreme Court finally settling the rights of the very parties, the issue cannot be allowed to be re-opened once again. Hence, Writ Petition No. 21186/2010 & Writ Petition Nos. 23885-895/2010 are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the following order is passed: 1. Writ Petiton No. 21186/2010 & Writ Petition Nos. 23885-23895/2010 are dismissed. 2. In view of dismissal of Writ Petiton No. 21136/2010 & Writ Petition Nos. 23885-23895/2010, the first prayer of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 32919-32922/2009 and Writ Petition No. 33654/2009 insofar as they relate to seeking quashing the order of denotification dated 14th October 2009 is concerned has become infructuous. 14. Consequently, the allotment of sites made in favour of various allottees including the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 23885-23895/2010, the first prayer of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 32919-32922/2009 and Writ Petition No. 33654/2009 insofar as they relate to seeking quashing the order of denotification dated 14th October 2009 is concerned has become infructuous. 14. Consequently, the allotment of sites made in favour of various allottees including the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 32919-32922/2009, Writ Petition No. 33654/2009 and Writ Petition No. 25859/2010 is to be acted upon and the Bangalore Development Authority is directed to execute sale deeds in respect of sites allotted in favour of such allottees. However, it is further made clear that this portion of the order may be implemented only if there is no other legal hurdle. Writ Petition Nos. 32919-32922/2009, Writ Petition No. 33654/2009 and Writ Petition No. 25859/2010 are disposed of accordingly.