<p>The high court has quashed the state government’s order denotifying 1.22 acres of land at Yellakunte village in Begur hobli, South Bengaluru. </p>.<p>The government cannot exercise powers under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act once the possession of the acquired land has been handed over, the court ruled. </p>.<p>The land in survey number 20/10A was part of 50 acres acquired for forming a housing layout.</p>.<p>The government had directed the land acquisition officer to hand over the land to the ITI Employees’ House Building Co-operative Society, which was effected through an official memorandum dated July 8, 2004. </p>.<p>The original owners of the land had, however, sold the land after the passing of the award as well as the notification under section 16 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. </p>.<p><strong>Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/city/bengaluru-infrastructure/no-question-of-dropping-shivaram-karanth-layout-av-chandrashekhar-committee-970779.html" target="_blank">No question of dropping Shivaram Karanth Layout: AV Chandrashekhar Committee</a></strong></p>.<p>Following requests by the subsequent buyers of the land under notification, the government had denotified it on September 1, 2010. </p>.<p>A single bench of the high court had upheld the order of the denotification. </p>.<p>However, a division bench headed by Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the order of the single bench, ruling that the denotification of land is not permissible once the possession has been handed over.</p>.<p> The bench noted that even landowners and subsequent purchasers were aware of the acquisition proceedings. “Thus, from perusal of Section 48 (1) of the act, it is evident that if the possession of the land is taken, the powers under Section 48 (1) of the Act cannot be exercised. </p>.<p>“Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, the state government could not have invoked the provisions of Section 48 (1) of the act and could not have issued the notification dated 01.09.2010,” the bench said, quashing the denotification order. </p>
<p>The high court has quashed the state government’s order denotifying 1.22 acres of land at Yellakunte village in Begur hobli, South Bengaluru. </p>.<p>The government cannot exercise powers under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act once the possession of the acquired land has been handed over, the court ruled. </p>.<p>The land in survey number 20/10A was part of 50 acres acquired for forming a housing layout.</p>.<p>The government had directed the land acquisition officer to hand over the land to the ITI Employees’ House Building Co-operative Society, which was effected through an official memorandum dated July 8, 2004. </p>.<p>The original owners of the land had, however, sold the land after the passing of the award as well as the notification under section 16 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. </p>.<p><strong>Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/city/bengaluru-infrastructure/no-question-of-dropping-shivaram-karanth-layout-av-chandrashekhar-committee-970779.html" target="_blank">No question of dropping Shivaram Karanth Layout: AV Chandrashekhar Committee</a></strong></p>.<p>Following requests by the subsequent buyers of the land under notification, the government had denotified it on September 1, 2010. </p>.<p>A single bench of the high court had upheld the order of the denotification. </p>.<p>However, a division bench headed by Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the order of the single bench, ruling that the denotification of land is not permissible once the possession has been handed over.</p>.<p> The bench noted that even landowners and subsequent purchasers were aware of the acquisition proceedings. “Thus, from perusal of Section 48 (1) of the act, it is evident that if the possession of the land is taken, the powers under Section 48 (1) of the Act cannot be exercised. </p>.<p>“Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, the state government could not have invoked the provisions of Section 48 (1) of the act and could not have issued the notification dated 01.09.2010,” the bench said, quashing the denotification order. </p>