Prior approval for co-operative housing acquisitions is mandatory; agent-driven, manipulated land acquisition can be invalidated.

Acquisition of land for a co-operative housing society is treated as public purpose only where prior government approval of the housing scheme exists, and that approval operates as a condition precedent. Where the process was driven by intermediaries, involved payments to agents, and lacked meaningful control over allotment or construction, the acquisition was characterised as a colourable exercise of power and legally mala fide, rendering the notifications invalid. In a distinct factual setting, where no agreement with an agent or contractor to procure acquisition was shown, the matter was treated differently and relief was granted on that basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether acquisition of land for a co-operative housing society could be sustained without prior approval of the housing scheme under the public-purpose provision and where the process was influenced by an intermediary or agent. (ii) Whether a different result followed in matters where no such intermediary agreement was shown and the factual setting was materially distinct.

Issue (i): Whether acquisition of land for a co-operative housing society could be sustained without prior approval of the housing scheme under the public-purpose provision and where the process was influenced by an intermediary or agent.

Analysis: The substituted definition of public purpose treated housing schemes of co-operative societies as public purpose only where the appropriate Government had granted prior approval. That approval was not a formality but a condition precedent. The record showed a hybrid procedure, use of middlemen, large payments to agents, absence of any demonstrated prior approval fixing safeguards, and no meaningful control on allotment or construction. The acquisition proceedings were therefore found to have been initiated for extraneous reasons and amounted to a colourable exercise of power and legal mala fides.

Conclusion: The acquisition was invalid and the notifications were liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether a different result followed in matters where no such intermediary agreement was shown and the factual setting was materially distinct.

Analysis: In the separate set of matters, the distinguishing feature was the absence of any agreement with an agent or contractor to procure acquisition. On those facts, the case did not stand on the same footing as the earlier matters in which the acquisition had been vitiated by the intermediary-driven process. The challenge therefore did not justify interference in those appeals.

Conclusion: Relief was granted in the distinct set of appeals and the High Court judgment was set aside to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The common legal principle applied was that acquisition for a co-operative housing scheme requires genuine public-purpose approval and cannot rest on an agent-driven or commercially manipulated process, but materially different facts may justify a different outcome.

Ratio Decidendi: Prior approval under the public-purpose housing provision is a mandatory condition precedent, and acquisition procured through extraneous influence or a colourable exercise of power is invalid.

---