Publish land denotification, orders rescinding them in gazette: Karnataka HC to Chief Secretary

A division bench comprising Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar also said that such orders should be made a part of the property records as well.

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has directed the chief secretary to promptly issue a circular ensuring that all government orders denotifying lands from acquisition, as well as subsequent orders rescinding such denotifications, are published in the official gazette.

A division bench comprising Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar also said such orders should be made part of the property records as well.

The division bench issued these directions while allowing the appeal filed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The bench has remitted the matter concerning approximately five acres of land in Challaghatta village for fresh consideration to determine whether the lands are liable to be denotified from acquisition.

On September 29, 2010, the lands intended for acquisition for the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout project were denotified. The BDA said they were not informed about the denotification. Subsequently, on October 19, 2010, the denotification order was rescinded because the BDA was not given an opportunity to be heard. However, the rescinding order was not published in the gazette.

On February 22, 2024, a division bench in another case upheld the BDA’s writ appeal, affirming the acquisition. In the current appeal, the BDA sought comparable relief, arguing that since the landowners were not consulted before rescinding the denotification, the issue should be reconsidered afresh.

The division bench said the orders rescinding the denotification must also be published in the gazette and widely publicised to ensure that unscrupulous landowners cannot mislead potential buyers by exploiting the denotification status.

“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. All this being said, we are inclined to remit the matter to the government for the fresh consideration as to whether these lands should be excluded from the fray of acquisition inasmuch as denotification was issued without hearing the appellant-BDA and subsequently, the same was cancelled by the rescinding order that was made without hearing the land owner,” the bench said.