<p>When the PIL filed by Congress MLA Narendra Babu came up for hearing, a Division Bench comprising Justice J S Khehar and Justice A S Bopanna ordered issues of notices to the respondents, including Urban Department.<br /><br />Yeddyurappa in his order, dated October 19, 2009, had approved the denotification of the land in Nandini Layout on the grounds that there was a school building on the land in which children were studying and also that previous owner of the land had made a representation for denotification.<br /><br />Subsequent to this, the Urban Development department issued a denotification order on January 12, 2010. The PIL challenged this order on the grounds that in January 2006 itself, the building was demolished by the BDA and even today the land was vacant. So approval by the Chief Minister for denotification of this land is "non application of mind" and "with malafide intentions", he contended.<br /><br />Nearly 15 impleading respondents appeared before the court and sought to contest the PIL stating that several original suits were pending before various civil courts in Bangalore pertaining to the same land.<br /><br />The court then directed the petitioner to implead them as parties and adjourned hearing of the PIL to January 27, 2011.</p>
<p>When the PIL filed by Congress MLA Narendra Babu came up for hearing, a Division Bench comprising Justice J S Khehar and Justice A S Bopanna ordered issues of notices to the respondents, including Urban Department.<br /><br />Yeddyurappa in his order, dated October 19, 2009, had approved the denotification of the land in Nandini Layout on the grounds that there was a school building on the land in which children were studying and also that previous owner of the land had made a representation for denotification.<br /><br />Subsequent to this, the Urban Development department issued a denotification order on January 12, 2010. The PIL challenged this order on the grounds that in January 2006 itself, the building was demolished by the BDA and even today the land was vacant. So approval by the Chief Minister for denotification of this land is "non application of mind" and "with malafide intentions", he contended.<br /><br />Nearly 15 impleading respondents appeared before the court and sought to contest the PIL stating that several original suits were pending before various civil courts in Bangalore pertaining to the same land.<br /><br />The court then directed the petitioner to implead them as parties and adjourned hearing of the PIL to January 27, 2011.</p>