JUDGMENT
1. This writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 arises from the judgment and order dated March 30th, 1992, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Rama Jois in Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority and Another v Shivanna and Others , whereby the
learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following observations:
(a) The writ petition is disposed of as unnecessary for the time being leaving liberty for the petitioner to state all facts which he has set out in the writ petition before the Land Acquisition Officer, in opposition to the objection to the acquisition to be filed by the two writ petitioners, namely, the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 29726 of 1981 and 29355 of 1981, and in opposition to objection of others, who claim to have purchased the very lands from the previous owners; (b) That the Land Acquisition Officer and the Bangalore Development Authority had been directed to consider all the points to be raised by the petitioner along with the objections to the acquisition to be filed by the aforesaid two writ petitioners and to take a decision in accordance with law.
2. The facts of the case in the nutshell may be stated as hereunder:
The appellant-petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 21124 of 1991 with the prayer for the reliefs, as mentioned in the writ petition and specifically for quashing/declaring illegal, null and void and non est – by writ of certiorari or by the direction in the nature of certiorari,- the order dated 8-9-1988, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, in No. AQB.DIS.AMN.GR(W) 22/88-89 and order dated 16-5-1991- Annexure-F to the writ petition, passed by the first respondent-the State of Karnataka in No. HUD/278/CE/188, Bangalore dated 16-5-1991, granting permission to convert the agricultural land for non- agricultural purposes and by latter order granting exemption under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 as well as to hold that sale dated 17-6-1991, in no way affects the petitioner of his rights. It was further claimed that this Court may declare order Annexure-A to be not binding on the petitioner and the rights to the schedule property are in no way affected by Annexure-A, that is order dated 27th July, 1984 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 29726 of 1981 connected with Writ Petition No. 29355 of 1981. The petitioner prayed for issuance of direction to BDA and subordinate authorities to protect the title and possession of the petitioner to the schedule land, and not to grant any permission to any person or group of persons for making any constructions or alterations.
As per appellant-petitioner’s case mentioned in the writ petition was that the petitioner was allotted the schedule site in the year 1976-77, with the approval of the Government. The land comprising of 528.30 acres of land was acquired by the scheme formed by the BDA, relating to Gokul II Stage, Rajamahal Vilas II Stage Layout. The land acquired consisted of different survey numbers in many villages or as many as 8 villages including Sy. No. 1/1 measuring 7 acres or more of Chikkama-ranahalli Village. That out of this Sy. No. 1/1, various sites including site Nos. 531 to 548, according to petitioner’s case, have been carved out. Petitioner’s case, that after various stages, namely of preliminary notification dated 3-1-1977, orders were passed and possession was taken by BDA and compensation was paid to interested persons. Petitioner’s further case is that one Shivanna, present respondent 3, feeling aggrieved with the award of compensation filed Writ Petition No. 18135 of 1981 and this Hon’ble Court by judgment and order dated 19-6-1981 disposed of the writ petition directing the said Land Acquisition Officer, BDA to award just compensation.
3. Petitioner’s case is that, thereafter the respondent 3 filed Writ Petition No. 29726 of 1981 and present respondent 4-Smt. Sunandamma filed Writ Petition No. 29355 of 1981, challenging the acquisition of Sy. Nos. 28 and 34/1 of different village with which the present petition giving rise to this appeal is not concerned. No doubt in Writ Petition No. 29276 of 1981, respondent 3, challenged the acquisition of 21 guntas of Sy. No. 1/1 of Village Chikkamaranahalli and alleged that the said land has been excluded. That by order dated 27-7-1984-Annexure-A to the writ petition, the learned Single Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.P. Bopanna was pleased to allow the Writ Petition No. 29355 of 1981 and to quash all the notifications preliminary and final taking the view that the entire acquisition proceedings were wholly without jurisdiction, since BDA had not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 17(5) of BDA Act read with Sections 5 and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act.
It may be mentioned here that when the decision was given in the above Writ Petition No. 29355 of 1981, according to the petitioner’s case BDA did not file any objections, though it had put in appearance. According to petitioner’s case, land bearing Sy. No. 1/1 of Chikkamaranahalli was acquired under preliminary notification dated 3-1-1977 and final notification dated 2-8-1978.
4. Award in respect of land mentioned above was passed on 5-8-1980 and possession of the land had been taken by BDA on 30-7-1981. Thereafter BDA formed the layout and according petitioner allotted various sites formed in the layout in favour of various persons, and further according to petitioner, one of such sites carved out of the land bearing Sy. No. 1/1 was allotted to the petitioner, that is the appellant and he was put in possession of the site. The BDA when it came to know about the above order, moved C.P. No. 144 of 1989 and C.P. No. 144-A of 1989 for the review of order passed by the learned Single Judge (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bopanna), by which the learned Single Judge had quashed the acquisition proceedings. That during pendency of the review petition, the 5th respondent filed an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner to grant her permission for conversion of land, bearing Sy. Nos. 1/1 and 44 in Chikkamaranahalli Village measuring 2.14 acres and 35 guntas respectively, from agricultural to non-agricultural land.
It may be mentioned here that, according to the petitioner-appellant, Sri Anjanappa, original owner of land bearing Sy. Nos. 1/1 and 44, as above had got the same by registered partition deed. He had died in the year 1982 leaving Sonnamma, 5th respondent and his two sons and that Sonnamma, as such and as mentioned earlier, moved the application for permission, as above.
5. Petitioner’s case is that BDA informed the Deputy Commissioner about the pendency of the Review Application, that is C.P. No. 144 of 1989, filed by the BDA before this Court and opposed the grant of conversion, but Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 8-9-1988 granted permission to convert the agricultural land into non-agricultural and for its user for non-agricultural purposes.
6. Later on, according to petitioner the 5th respondent by registered sale deed dated 17th of June, 1991, sold the aforesaid land in favour of the 6th respondent in the writ petition, the 6th respondent in the writ petition is M/s. Nikhil Constructions Company. It may also be mentioned here that an application was also filed by 5th and 6th respondents before the Government for grant of exemption of the aforesaid land from the purview of the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act. This application was also filed during the pendency of the review petition, namely C.P. No. 144 of 1989.
7. In the review petition, at the initial stage, Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo, but 5th respondent, her son and daughter had sold the land in question to 6th respondent.
The petitioner in his petition has alleged that the Deputy Commissioner of Land Acquisition, 2nd respondent suggested BDA not to pursue the review petition. Looking to that circumstance Government has not chosen to disapprove the suggestion of Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition) not to pursue the review petition and in view of orders dated 8-9-1988 and 16-5-1991 and sale deed 17-6-1991, petitioner apprehended that acts of omission and commission of the respondents 1 and 2, may result in total deprivation of the rights of the petitioner to Scheduled sites which had been allotted to the petitioner on the land in question after acquisition, and as such the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 21124 of 1991. Petitioner asserted that Additional Deputy Commissioner had no power to grant sanction or permission to convert agricultural land into non-agricultural land, in view of decision of this Court in ILR 1988 Kar. 1930 (sic). Petitioner asserted that he apprehend it, that respondents may alter the status quo in respect of site bearing No. 548, which according to petitioner had been carved out on Sy. No. 1/1, Chikkamaranahalli Village which formed the part of the Scheduled site. As the order sheet indicates, on 30-9-1991, rule nisi was issued and stay was granted, staying the operation of the impugned annexures. Later on it appears an application LA. II was moved for clubbing the writ petition with C.P. No. 144 of 1989. This I.A. II was moved on 2-1-1992 and is on record and it was placed with office report dated 29-2-1992 and on 19-3-1992, this writ petition was heard along with the C.P. No. 144 of 1989 and judgment was delivered by this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rama Jois) on 30-3-1992. Neither respondent 5, nor respondent 3 and nor respondent 6, even prayed for time to file any counter-affidavit at that time, though they appeared through their Counsels. The C.P. No. 144 of 1989 was heard and disposed of by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Rama Jois order dated 30-9-1992.
8. After having heard the learned Counsels for the parties, in that case, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rama Jois modified the order passed in the writ petition and material portion of the order dated 30-9-1992 reads as under:
“Review petitions – C.P. Nos. 144 and 144-A of 1989 are allowed. The orders in the writ petitions are modified as follows:
The impugned final notification is quashed only insofar as it relates to following extent of lands:
Village
Sy. No.
Extent A-G.
Mathikere
48/1
1-18
48/8
0-1
49/9
0-2
120/1
0-14
Chikkamaranahalli
1/1
9-04
44
7-32
Total
18-31″
BDA is at liberty to proceed with the stage at which illegality was committed. The learned Judge also directed that writ petitioner and other persons, who filed interlocutory application, may file the objections to preliminary notification on or before 30th April, 1992 before Land Acquisition Officer. A perusal of the order of Hon’ble Justice Rama Jois will reveal that he opined that only final notification has been quashed by the learned Single Judge Mr. Justice Bopanna. He opined that preliminary notification could not have been quashed and in the order, as it is mentioned that notifications are quashed to the extent it has the effect of quashing preliminary notification, the order suffers from error apparent on record and, thus modified the order. While disposing of these C.P. Nos. 144 and 144-A of 1989, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rama Jois disposed of the writ petition, as misconceived and unnecessary for being considered on merits and he ordered that, as by the order in C.P. No. 144 of 1989, that the writ petitioner, who according to learned Judge was concerned in supporting the acquisition, as he happened to be an allottee of a site formed out of land acquired, was directed and it was ordered and observed that the petitioner was at liberty to file objections to the objections to be filed by respondents challenging the preliminary notification, and it was further directed that competent authority shall consider and dispose of those objections or objections to the challenge to be made by respondents to preliminary notification of acquisition and, thus disposed of the writ petition, as being unnecessary and misconceived one.
9. From the order passed in C.P. Nos. 144 and 144-A of 1989, dated 30th March, 1992, Writ Appeal No. 1616 of 1992 had been preferred by one M.A. Lakshmithathachar and from order dated 30th March, 1992
passed in Writ Petition No. 21124 of 1991, Writ Appeal No. 1330 of 1992, has been preferred by the writ petitioner-Sri Gurushanthappa.
By order dated 31st of March, 1997, a Division Bench, of which (one of us) Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, was a member, had been pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge Justice Rama Jois as well as quashed Annexures-E and F to the
writ petition.
10. Appeal number W.A. No. 1616 of 1992, from order of review passed in C.P. No. 144 of 1989, was initially dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court (consisting of Mr. Justice P. Krishnamurthy and Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.N. Vallinayagam) by order dated 5th March, 1997, but it appears that order dated 5-3-1997 was recalled on 18-6-1974 in W.A. No. 1616 of 1992 and thereafter W.A. No. 1616 of 1992, after having been heard on merits by order dated 18th June, 1997, allowed by the Bench consisting of P. Krishnamurthy and Sri T.N. Vallinayagam, JJ. and ordered that: In result we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dismissing W.P. No. 29726 of 1981 (i.e., C.P. No. 144 of 1989).
11. It is pertinent to note, as observed by the Division Bench in its order dated 18-6-1997, passed in Writ Appeal No. 1616 of 1992, that the third respondent-Shivanna herein challenged the final award passed by Land Acquisition Officer only and not the acquisition proceedings nor the notifications relating to acquisition (preliminary nor final) by filing W.P. No. 18131 of 1980. If he was aggrieved by the entire acquisition proceedings, he should have challenged the preliminary and final notifications in that writ petition (i.e., W.P. No. 18131 of 1981) itself but he did not do so, and had challenged only the award. The Division Bench further observed that–
” “this Court also set aside the award and not the entire acquisition proceedings and directed the Land Acquisition Officer or the BDA to pass fresh award. Having chosen to challenge the award only as just above and it is not open to 3rd respondent-Shivanna to challenge the entire acquisition proceedings in a subsequent writ petition (Writ Petition No. 29726 of 1981). It is clearly barred by constructive res judicata, as he ought to have challenged the notifications itself, if he wanted, in the earlier writ petition”. There, it was further observed, “moreover the fact that he filed earlier writ petition was not mentioned in the subsequent writ petition at all and there is suppression of material fact. On these grounds, we are clearly of the opinion that the 3rd respondent-Shivanna is not entitled to any relief and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed”.
After having made these observations, the Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble P. Krishnamurthy and Hon’ble T.N. Vallinayagam were pleased to allow the appeal and to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 29726 of 1981 as well as orders, namely order dated 30-9-1992 passed in C.P. No. 144 of 1989 and C.P. No. 144-A of 1989″.
12. In the present case, that is appeal No. W.A. No. 1330 of 1992, on the application moved by Sri Mohan Rangam, Counsel for 6th respondent, on the ground of his absence, at the time of hearing of the appeal, caused by his ailment and personal ill-health.
By the order dated 6th October, 1999, in C.P. No. 261 of 1999, this Division Bench was pleased to allow C.P. No. 261 of 1999 to recall the order dated 31-3-1997 and restored the appeal. Thus the appeal has come up for final hearing, again.
13. We have heard Sri Uday Holla, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Sri T.S. Ramachandra for respondent 3, Sri B.C. Thiruven-gadam, on behalf of respondent 6, Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, for respondent 4, Sri Ashok B. Patil for respondents 5(a) and 5(b), and Sri C.B. Srinivasan for respondent 2, for good length of time.
14. On behalf of the respondents, primarily contention has been advanced that the appeal is not maintainable, as the writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioner has no cause and the preliminary objection was hotly contested.
The maintainability of the petition had to be examined on the basis of facts and circumstances and allegations made in the writ petition. There is no dispute that petitioner-appellant had been granted a site. According to the petitioner he had been granted it on a portion of land of Sy. No. 1/1 of Chikkamaranahalli Village and felt aggrieved, because of the order dated 27-7-1984 in W.P. No. 29726 of 1981, whereby the entire acquisition proceedings and notifications apparently had been quashed, though in review, later on said order dated 27-7-1984 was modified by order dated 30-3-1992 passed in C.P. No. 144 of 1989, but it is to be taken note that present petitioner was not made a party in that writ petition.
15. The order in that writ petition, i.e., W.P. No. 29726 of 1981, was no doubt passed on 27th July, 1984 of which BDA had no knowledge when making allotment. According to petitioner when BDA came to know about that order dated 27th July, 1984, it no doubt filed C.P. No. 144 of 1989 and in spite of fact of C.P. being brought to the notice of the authorities, according to petitioner, orders Annexures-E and F were passed on 8-9-1988 and 16-5-1991 and the Deputy Commissioner of Land Acquisition was suggesting BDA not to pursue the remedy. So in these circumstances, petitioner felt apprehension genuinely that the site that has been allotted to him on the land, in question, he may not be deprived thereof and of its enjoyment on improvement of which he as per allegation in writ petition spent lot of money as such petitioner can be said to have genuine cause of action to file the writ petition once orders Annexures-E and F dated 8-9-1989 and 16-5-1991 had been passed.
16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, it appears that site No. 548 had been allotted in Sy. No. 44 and not 1/1. Firstly to determine the cause of action the allegations contained in the plaint or petition have to be seen and not the allegation in written statement or
counter-affidavit. If preliminary objection involves a mixed questions of facts and law to be decided, and relates to maintainability then it may not be treated as preliminary objection. No doubt this Court, in cases has dismissed the writ petition, where pure questions of facts only are involved and directed the parties to approach proper forum for determination of facts through proper forum. At the time when the matter was beginning taken at the hearing, the present respondents did not raise any preliminary objections, they have sought time to file their objections. They have not chosen to do that at the stage of hearing of writ petition, but only at the stage of hearing of the appeal. As such preliminary objections at the appellate stage is not being entertained.
Learned Counsel for the respondents further contended that Sy. No. 1/1, has been released from acquisition by subsequent notification and that notification withdrawing or releasing this plot from acquisition had been challenged before this Court in an another public litigation filed by one Amanulla Sheriff and a Division Bench of this Court has maintained the release of the plot as such writ appeal be dismissed, as it has become infructuous under changed circumstances. The learned Counsel for the respondents made reference to the order of the Division Bench in Amanulla Sheriff v State of Karnataka and Others. That writ petition has, no doubt been dismissed, but it does not indicate, whether it is related to release of acquisition of this land or Sy. No. 1/1. The English version of R1-1C notification dated August 25, 1994 of withdrawal for land acquisition is with respect to Survey No. 0/0 and Sy. No. 44 and not with reference to Sy. No. 1/1.
17. The Division Bench traced the history of acquisition proceeding and thereafter filing of the Writ Petition No. 29726 of 1981 and thereafter filing of C.P. No. 144 and the order passed in the C.P. and made reference to the Writ Appeal Nos. 1330 of 1992 and 1616 of 1992, whereby the order passed in the review and the writ petition has been assailed. It may be taken note that the Writ Appeal No. 1616 of 1992 was dismissed on 5-3-1997, but it does not appear that the order dated 18-6-1997 was brought to the notice of the Bench, but Bench noted the order dated 31-3-1997 passed in W.A. No. 1330 of 1992 and after taking note of those facts the Court observes in paragraph 4, “in view of prolonged litigation from 1978 which is continuing now, we do not see any ground to interfere with the acquisition proceedings. So by perusal of this order, this Court did not want to interfere with the acquisition proceedings. So perusal of this order shows this Court did not want to interfere with the acquisition proceedings and dismissed the writ petition. This order is of no help to the respondents, nor Annexure-RI does supports respondents’ contention, as such this contention of the respondent’s Counsel is without any merits and is rejected.
Learned Counsel further pointed out that very order in Writ Appeal No. 1330 of 1992, S.L.P. has been filed and that is pending.
18. The effect of the order, as it stands, namely order dated 18-6-1997 in Writ Appeal No. 1616 of 1992, is that notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 3-1-1977 and final notification dated 2-8-1978 published in Gazette dated 31st August, 1978, cannot be deemed to have been quashed, instead it stands intact and operative, as the order passed in Writ Petition No. 29726 of 1981 passed by the learned Single Judge has been set aside and the writ petition has been dismissed. When the Bench has dismissed the writ petition and refused the reliefs claimed in that writ petition, it tantamounts to setting aside the orders passed by Hon’ble Single Judges in that writ petition granting relief either in originally or by way of order passed in review petition.
19. The land having stood acquired and vested under land acquisition proceeding, it stood acquired under those above mentioned notifications and the order of the Single Judge having been quashed, the order granting permission to convert the user of land from agricultural to non-agricultural in favour of the respondents, especially respondents 5 and 6 could not be of any help to either respondent 5 or 6 or any of the respondents. Land having been once vested in the State or the Bangalore Development Authority and its possession having been taken, the order of the State Government dated 16-5-1991, in our opinion could not be of any benefits to respondents, so far as acquisition of the land under Land Acquisition Act read with the BDA Act is concerned. The exemption that was granted and that could be granted under Urban Land Ceiling Act, its operation and scope is limited, that such an exemption could be granted only with reference to the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and whereunder that exemption is granted. The land exempted may be retained by the holder of the land and provisions of Section 3 onwards to Section 24 of Urban Land Ceiling Act may not apply to that land and that, that exemption granted thereunder could be availed only with reference to determination of celling area and excess area to the holder of land in cases proceeding under that Act only. Here it is not a case of proceedings under Urban Land Ceiling Act. The land when had been acquired under Land Acquisition Act read with BDA Act, and possession has been taken and handed over to the BDA which started carving the sites and carved out the sites. The order of exemption not being under any provisions of Land Acquisition Act with reference to land acquisition proceedings, cannot have the effect of nullifying the acquisition proceedings relating to that.
In my opinion this order by itself is ineffective, and it cannot be taken to be effecting in any manner the acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification dated 3-1-1977 and in respect of which final notification has been published on 2-8-1978, the orders Annexures-E and F being ineffective in the eye of law on account of acquisition of the land by the above mentioned notification and setting aside of orders passed in W.P. No. 29726 of 1981 and dismissal of the Writ Petition No. 29726 of 1981, by the Division Bench by order dated 18-6-1997 in W.A. No. 1616 of 1992. Even if the site granted to the petitioner exists on Sy. No. 1/1, there does not appear to be a reasonable apprehension at this stage of interference
of petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the site allotted to him on the land acquired on the basis of order dated 27-7-1984 or 30-3-1992 passed in said writ petition, as orders of Single Judge quashing the notifications stand set aside.
20. The Division Bench in W.A. No. 1616 of 1992, has rightly observed, as the respondent had not challenged the acquisition proceedings in his earlier writ petition, namely Writ Petition No. 18131 of 1980 and got the writ petition allowed only with reference to the matter of award of compensation, subsequently challenging the notification of acquisition by Writ Petition No. 29726 of 1981, was hit by principles of constructive res judicata it was also barred by Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC.
21. As the order dated 27-7-1984 and the modified order dated 30-3-1992 passed in course of proceeding of Writ Petition No. 29726 of 1981 have been set aside and the writ petition itself having been dismissed by the Division Bench by its order dated 18-6-1997 passed in W.A. No. 1616 of 1992. The relief claimed was that the order dated 27-7-1984 under Annexure-A to the writ petition is not binding and has become infructu-ous, for the present until and unless that order is reversed by an order of the Higher Court. As such the relief claimed under head-C of the relief clause that this Court may declare that the order at Annexure-A is not binding on the petitioner and that rights to the Scheduled properties in any way are not affected by it has become infructuous, as order dated 27-7-1984 Annexure-A and modified order dated 30-3-1992 passed by the Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 29726 of 1981, have ceased to exist by having set aside the order in the writ appeal, and the Writ Petition No. 29726 of 1981 having been dismissed, the relief ‘C’ claimed in the present writ petition giving rise to this appeal cannot be granted. It is further to be held that order of exemption of the land in question from Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, in view of acquisition having been completed and orders setting aside notifications of acquisition having been set aside, the order granting exemption cannot have any effect, so far as acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act and under BDA Act, 1979 is concerned. Those orders have automatically become infructuous as well as nugatory and illegal. As once the land has been acquired, the respondents cannot claim to have any right over the land acquired including site allotted to the appellant, namely site No. 548, as described in the memo petition of the appeal if is situate on Sy. No. 1/1, as claimed by the petitioner-appellant.
22. As the acquisition proceedings having been upheld, in view of the order dated 18th June, 1997, passed in W.A. No. 1616 of 1992, the orders dated 8-9-1988 and 16-5-1991, have to be deemed to be illegal, null and void and are not to affect adversely nor on the basis thereof respondent can dispossess the petitioner from his site, even if it is situate on 1/1, but if it is situate on Sy. No. 44, as alleged at the stage of hearing by the respondents, even then under these orders dated 8-9-1988 and 16-5-1991, respondents are not entitled to interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the site, namely site No. 548, as according to the petitioner and respondent these orders dated 8-9-1988 and 16-5-1991 relate to site on Sy. No. 1/1 and not Sy. No. 44. So in both the cases, as to whether the site No. 548 is situate on Sy. No. 1/1 or on Sy. No. 44, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the site No. 548.
The question of fact: Whether site No. 548 is situate on Sy. No. 1/1 or Sy. No. 44, is a question of fact to be decided at the proper stage by a Court of fact, but herein the present case; Whether it is situate on Sy. No. 1/1 or 44, in either of the cases the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the petitioner’s possession in the above circumstances.
23. The effect of order of the Division Bench dated 18-6-1997 further is, that the order of the learned Single Judge which tantamounts to dismissal of the present writ petition with direction to present petitioner to file objection before Land Acquisition Officer, in reply to present respondent’s objection to acquisition proceeding preliminary notification, has to be set aside and it is hereby set aside.
The appeal is allowed and it is held that the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over site No. 548; Whether it is situate on Sy. No. 1/1 or Sy. No. 44, in view of acquisition of Sy. No. 1/1.
Relief number-C, as mentioned earlier in the writ petition has already become infructuous, in view of order passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1616 of 1992, where the orders passed by the Single Judge quashing both the notifications preliminary and final, as well the one clarifying that final notification is quashed, both have to be deemed to have been set aside, once the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition No. 29726 of 1981 has been refused and said writ petition has been dismissed, and as such once those orders have been set aside and there is no question of order Annexure-A being binding on the petitioner, as it has ceased to exist.
The writ petition and writ appeal are, as such, disposed of in the above terms.