TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (2) TMI 712
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Civil Petition No. 366/1998. Civil Appeal Nos. 774-78/2005 are directed against judgment dated 06.02.2004 passed in Writ Appeal No. 4246/1998, C/W W.A. No. 6039/1998 and orders dated 11.02.2004 and 15.09.2004 passed in I.A. No. 1 for rectification in Writ Appeal No. 4246/1998, C/W W.A. No. 6039/1998 and Review Petition Nos. 166 and 170 of 2004, respectively. 2. Although, the High Court quashed the acquisition proceedings mainly on the grounds of violation of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act') and the manipulations made by the Appellant through the Estate Agent for acquiring the land, during the pendency of these appeals the parties filed voluminous papers and arguments were advanced by both the sides by relying upon those documents as also the records summoned by the Court from the State Government. 3. For appreciating the contentions of the parties in a correct perspective, it will be useful to notice the events which culminated in the acquisition of the lands belonging to the private Respondents and others. 3.1 Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) was constituted by the State Government under Section 3 of the Bangalore ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....where lands are reserved for purposes other than green belt and which are suitable for residential purpose, layouts may be considered after obtaining prior approval of Government for the change in land use. 2. The Co-operation Department shall register the names of the Housing Societies only after getting the opinion of the planning Authority (BDA) which shall verify whether the lands proposed for the societies are in the residential zone or are suitable for residential purpose as indicated in para 1, or whether they are required by Bangalore Development Authority. 3. If the Housing Society has purchased land, no objection certificate from the competent authority, Urban land ceiling should be produced. 4. The Housing Societies/Private developers should produce the title deeds to prove ownership of the land. 5. The Bangalore City Corporation, the HAL Sanitary Board, ITI., Notification area, Yelahanka and Kengeri Municipal authorities and such other authorities shall not approve any bifurcation of land into plots or any private layout. Such approval should be done only by the planning Authority (BDA) according to the Karnata....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tes should be allotted only to the members of the societies and not to other individuals for purposes of land speculation. A list of members shall be submitted by the societies along with the application for approval of private layouts. 3.4 The aforesaid decision of the State Government was misused by the housing societies which started purchasing lands directly from the landlords for forming the layouts resulting in uncontrolled, unplanned and haphazard development of the city. It also created acute problem of providing civic amenities, transport facilities etc. Therefore, by an order dated 18.6.1985, the State Government abandoned the existing policy of acquiring land through the Revenue Department and entrusted this task to the BDA for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. The State Government also stopped registration of the housing societies and conversion of agricultural lands in favour of the existing societies. Simultaneously, the State Government constituted a Three Men Committee (TMC) consisting of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Karnataka, T. Thimme Gowda, Secretary, BDA and the Special Deputy Development Commissioner to scrutinize the land requirements of the hous....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ahalli Hobli, Bangalore south Taluk to an extent of 250 acres. A list showing the sy. numbers and extent of lands is enclosed. 7. We request your kind self to acquire these lands in favour of our society and handover possession to form layout to distribute sites to the members who are in great need of sites to construct their own houses. 8. We have collected sital amounts from the members. The cost of acquisition will be met by the society. Necessary amount towards compensation will be deposited with the acquisition authorities on receipt of intimation and after obtaining approval of Government. It is submitted that the society is agreeable to abide by all terms and conditions to be laid down by the Government in the matter. 3.6 The Revenue Department of the State Government vide its letter dated 29.12.1984 forwarded the aforesaid representation to Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore for being placed before the TMC constituted vide letter No. RD-109 AQB 84 dated 26.7.1984. 3.7 Between January, 1985 and 1987 the Appellant's application made several rounds before the TMC, the State Level Coordination Committee (SLCC), constitu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the death of the proprietor of M/s. Manasa Enterprises in a car accident on 28.2.1987. However, before the Joint Registrar could make the necessary investigation, the Appellant's application was considered in the meeting of the SLCC held on 24.10.1987 and the following proceedings were recorded: The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore raised a question as to whether the entitlement for acquisition would depend upon the number of enrolled members as of the cut off date of 30.4.1984 or the number of enrolled members who had paid the sital value by that date. The Revenue Commissioner clarified that as per the GO, the entitlement depended on the total number of enrolled members irrespective of whether they had applied for a site. The Secretary, HUD also agreed with this and stated that as per the bye-laws of these societies, all members would be eligible for grant of sites so long as they had paid the membership fees prior to the cut off date. The Deputy Commissioner however pointed out that the previous and even the present Three Member Committee had based its recommendations disregarding those members who had not paid the sital value. The SLCC decided that as it would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h M/s. Rajendra Enterprises whereby the latter promised to secure the acquisition of land on payment of the specific amount. Paragraphs 1 to 8 of the agreement, which have bearing on consideration of one of the issues arising in these appeals read as under: 1. THIS AGREEMENT entered into on this the 21st (Twenty first) day of February 1988 between The Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society Limited, No. 2, Seethapathi Agrahara, Bangalore-560002, a Cooperative Societies Act, represented by its President and the Executive Director and hereinafter referred to as the 'FIRST PARTY', which term shall mean and include its successors, assigns in office, administrators etc. and M/s. Shri Rajendra Enterprises, No. 4507, 5th Floor, High Point-IV, 4, Palace Road, Bangalore-560 001, represented by its Managing Partner M. Krishnappa, Estate Agent and Engineering Contractor, hereinafter called the Agent of the 'SECOND PARTY' which term shall mean and include its successors in interest and successors in office, assigns, administrators etc., witnessed: 2. WHEREAS THE FIRST PARTY has selected about 228 acres land as detailed in the schedule, in Vajar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nks, water lines, etc., for the provision of water laying of electrical lines, sewerage lines, etc., and in accordance with the details approved by the respective Statutory and Government authorities on the schedule lands in consideration of the amount to be paid by the First Party as per the B.D.A. rate prevailing at the time of execution of the above specified works. 7. WHEREAS the Second Party at the behest of the First Party is taking action to move various Government and Statutory authorities towards the publication of Notification in the Official Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, for the acquisition of the schedule lands. 8. NOW the First Party and the Second Party agree to undertake the above works as detailed below: - SECOND PARTY PROCUREMENT of LANDS FIRST PARTY 1) To get Notification under Section 4(1) of the LAR within four months 1) At the time of execution of the Agreement of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and upto issue of 4(1) Notification Rs. 15/- per Sq. Yd. against Bank Guarantee. 2) Issue of Notification under Section 4(1) and subsequent enquiry under Section 5(1) compl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Level Coordination Committee has recommended for acquisition of 208 acres 18 guntas of land in 1st/IIIrd stage in favour of Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society. As against this the society has furnished S. No. wise details for 207 acres 29 guntas (list enclosed) which is within the extent recommended by State Level Coordination Committee. Hence you are directed to initiate acquisition proceedings by issue of notification under Section 4(1) for an extent of 207 acres 29 guntas of land as recommended by S.L.C.C. in the village of Vajarahalli and Raghuvanahalli in favour of Bangalore City House Building Cooperative Society Ltd., Bangalore subject to the following conditions: i) The extent involved (if any) under Section 79(A) and B may be excluded while issue of 4(1) notification for the present, which can be notified after the pending proceedings under the said Act are finalized. (ii) Move the Spl. Deputy Commissioner, ULC to finalize the proceedings pending under ULC Act before 31.5.1988. Yours faithfully, (MAHDI HUSSAINA) Under Secretary to Government Revenue Department. 3.15 On 7.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f any Officer OR officers of the GOVERNOR who the GOVERNMENT may think it necessary to employ OR deputation Special duty for the purpose of such acquisition and also including the percentage charges on the total amount of compensation awarded as prescribed by GOVERNMENT. The monies which shall be payable by the Society under this clause shall be paid to the Special Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore (hereinafter called the "SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER") within fourteen days after demand by the SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER in writing of such amount or amounts as the SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER shall from time to time estimate to be required for the purpose of paying OR disbursing any compensation, damages, costs, charges, OR expenses herein before referred to, for which the COMPANY has made provision in their finance. 2. On payment of the entire cost of the acquisition of the SAID LAND as hereinabove referred to the whole of the said land shall as soon as conveniently may be transferred to the SOCIETY as to vest in the COMPANY subject to the provision of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter called the SAID ACT) and the rules made hereunder subject also to the prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s (but excluding the cost of value of any improvements made by the SOCIETY to the SAID LAND or on any structure standing on the SAID LAND shall be paid as compensation to the SOCIETY. Provided that the SAID LAND and the buildings, if any, erected thereon shall not be so resumed unless due notice of the breaches complained of the been given to the Company and the Society has failed to make good the break or to comply with any directions issued by the GOVERNMENT in this behalf, within the time specified in the said notice for compliance therewith. 7. If at any time or times, the whole or any part of the SAID LAND is required by GOVERNMENT or for the purpose of making any new public road or for any purpose connected with public health, safety, utility or necessary the Company on being required by the GOVERNMENT in writing shall transfer to the GOVERNMENT the whole or part of the SAID LAND as the GOVERNMENT shall specify to the necessary for any of the aforesaid purposes the SOCIETY A SUM equal to the amount of the compensation awarded under the said Act, and paid by the SOCIETY IN respect of the land to transferred including the percentages awarded under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e referred to as Respondent No. 3 and Survey Nos. 7/1 and 8/1 belonging to the predecessor of P. Ramaiah, Munikrishna, Keshava Murthy, Smt. Nagaveni and Smt. Chikkathayamma (Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 in Civil Appeal Nos. 774-778/2005). 3.17 Respondent No. 3 filed detailed objections against the proposed acquisition of her land and pointed out that the same were garden lands; that she and her predecessor had planted 165 fruit bearing mango trees, 75 coconut plants, 15 lime plants, 15 guava trees, 100 papaya trees, 40 eucalyptus trees, 6 custard apple trees, 100 teakwood trees, 3 neem trees, one big tamarind tree, 2 gulmohar trees, 10 firewood trees and 10 banana plants. She also pointed out that there was a residential house and a pump house with electric connection and the area had been fenced by barbed wires and stone pillars. Shri P. Ramaiah also filed objections dated 6.9.1988 and claimed that the proposed acquisition was contrary to the provisions of the 1894 Act and that the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 7/1 and 8/1 were the only source of livelihood of his family. 3.18 The objections filed by Respondent No. 3 were considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer along w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....termined market value of the acquired land. The award was approved by the State Government on 11.3.1991. However, before the possession of the acquired land could be taken, the State Government issued notification dated 3.8.1991 under Section 48(1) of the 1894 Act and withdrew the acquisition proceedings in respect of land comprised in Survey No. 50/2. Vide letter dated 9.10.1991, the Revenue Department requested Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore to examine the representation made by Respondent No. 3 for withdrawal of the acquisition of Survey No. 49. To the same effect letter dated 29.1.1992 was sent by the Secretary, Revenue Department to the Special Deputy Commissioner. However, no final decision appears to have been taken on these communications. 3.25 After one year and over six months of the passing of the award, the State Government issued Notification dated 7.1.1992 under Section 16(2) in respect of various parcels of lands including Survey No. 49. The possession of 150 acres 91/2 guntas of land of Vajarahalli and Raghuvanahalli is said to have been handed over by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the Secretary of the Appellant-Society. However, as will be seen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er another notice dated 6.2.1990 of fixing the inspection of the spot on 9.2.1990 was received in pursuance of the same spot inspection was held and one more notice dated 7.3.1990, 11.5.1990 on those days inspection was not made. There afterwards, he submitted the petition to the Revenue Secretary. His enquiries with the Revenue Secretary revealed the proceedings bearing No. RD 294 AQB 90 dated 5.10.1991 one Mr. N. Lokraj, Under Secretary to the Government called for reports on the matter vide Notification dated 29.1.1992. Therefore, the grievance of the Petitioner was pending consideration before the Government under Section 15A of the Land Acquisition Act as on 29th January, 1992. In this regard, we have perused the record produced by the Government. These facts with reference to the identification of the acquisition in respect of the land in question along with other lands are reflected therein. Further the explanation offered by the Appellant at paragraph 15 in the writ petition clearly show the bonafides on the part of the Appellant in the matter of challenging the acquisition proceedings, as he had submitted the representation to the Revenue Department seeking for identificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we have no option but to hold that there is no housing scheme approved by the State Government. Hence on this ground the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed. The Division Bench also opined that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had submitted report without giving opportunity of hearing to Respondent No. 3 and this was sufficient to nullify the acquisition of her land. 4.4 Civil Petition No. 366/1998 filed by the Appellant for review of judgment dated 16.3.1998 was dismissed by the Division Bench by observing that once the Government had issued notification under Section 48(1) nothing survives for consideration. 4.5 Writ Appeal No. 1459/1997 filed by Appellant against the negation of its challenge to notification issued under Section 48(1) was dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 12.3.1998 along with other similar writ appeals and writ petition. B. Shri P. Ramaiah and Ors. case. 5.1 Shri P. Ramaiah and Ors. also challenged the acquisition proceedings in Writ Petition No. 10406/1991. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by relying upon order dated 15.6.1998 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition Nos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....drew Notification dated 25.6.1999. The grounds of challenge and the arguments. 7.1 The Appellant has challenged the impugned judgments on several grounds most of which relate to the case of Respondent No. 3. Therefore, we shall first deal with those grounds. Shri Dushyant Dave and Shri P. Vishwanatha Shetty, learned senior Counsel for the Appellant argued that the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 3 was highly belated and the Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge not to entertain her challenge to the acquisition of land on the ground of delay of more than 2-1/2 years. In support of this argument, learned senior Counsel relied upon the judgments of this Court in Ajodhya Bhagat v. State of Bihar (1974) 2 SCC 501, State of Mysore v. V.K. Kangan (1976) 2 SCC 895, Pt. Girdharan Prasad Missir v. State of Bihar (1980) 2 SCC 83, Hari Singh v. State of U.P. (1984) 2 SCC 624, Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Company (P) Ltd. (1996) 11 SCC 501, Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur v. Bheru Lal (2002) 7 SCC 712 and Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of Rajas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tertained ignoring the delay of almost nine years. Sikri and Hedge, JJ. were of the view that even though the Petitioner had approached the Court with considerable delay, the writ petition filed by it should be allowed because Section 12(a)(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act was declared unconstitutional by the Division Bench of the High Court. Bachawat and Mitter, JJ. opined that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay. Chief Justice Hidayatullah who agreed with Bachawat and Mitter, JJ. noted that no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and proceeded to observe: Therefore, the question is one of discretion for this Court to follow from case to case. There is no lower limit and there is no upper limit. A case may be brought within Limitation Act by reason of some article but this Court need not necessarily give the total time to the litigant to move this Court under Article 32. Similarly in a suitable case this Court may entertain such a petition even after a lapse of time. It will all depend on what the breach of the Fundamental Right and the remedy claimed are when and how the delay aro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... day no inspection has been held by any of the officers who had succeeded Shri Harish Gowda in pursuance of notices mentioned above at Annexure 'L', 'M', 'N', 'O' respectively. The Petitioner was given to understand that she will be informed in due course. However, the Petitioner has not received any such notice. 14. The Plaintiff submits that recent enquiries show that the Secretariat (Revenue Department) had addressed two communications to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Krishi Bhavan, Bangalore, bearing No. RD 294 AQB 90 dated 5.10.1991 and 22.1.1992 under the signature of Sri. M. Lokraj, Under Secretary to Government, Revenue Department calling for reports on the matter immediately. ANNEXURE 'Q' and 'R' are Xerox copies of the said communications dated 5.10.1991 and 29.1.1992. These clearly go to show that the Petitioner's grievances regarding the legality and propriety of the proceedings and the question of deletion had been taken up for consideration under Section 15(A) of the Land Acquisition Act and that the enquiry was still pending even as late as 29th January, 1992, which is the date of Annexure 'R&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent No. 3 for inspection will be held on 14.5.1990 but the concerned officer did not turn up; (iv) letters dated 5.10.1991 and 22.1.1992 were sent by the Revenue Department to Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore requiring him to submit report in the matter of withdrawal of acquisition; and (v) in paragraph 15 of the writ petition, she had disclosed the cause for her filing the writ petition in May 1992. In our view, non-consideration of these vital facts and documents by the learned Single Judge resulted in miscarriage of justice. The Division Bench did not commit any error by holding that Respondent No. 3 was not guilty of latches. 13. The judgments relied upon by Learned Counsel for the parties turned on their own facts and the same do not contain any binding proposition of law. However, we may briefly notice the reasons which influenced the Court in declining relief to the Petitioner(s) in those cases on the ground of delay. In Ajodhya Bhagat's case, this Court noted that the writ petition had been filed after 6 years of finalization of the acquisition proceedings and held that the High Court was justified in declining relief to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was contrary to Section 3(f)(vi) of the 1894 Act and that the factual foundation having not been laid by Respondent No. 3, the Division Bench of the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to declare that the acquisition was not for a public purpose. Learned senior Counsel relied upon the judgments in M/s. Tulasidas Khimji v. Their Workmen (1963) 1 SCR 675, Third Income-tax Officer, Mangalore v. M. Damodar Bhat (1969) 2 SCR 29, Ram Sarup v. Land Acquisition Officer (1973) 2 SCC 56, Sockieting Tea Company (P) Ltd. v. Under Secy. to the Govt. of Assam (1973) 3 SCC 729, Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, (1988) 4 SCC 534, Umashanker Pandey v. B.K. Uppal, (1991) 2 SCC 408, M/s. Jindal Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana 1991 Supp (2) SCC 587, D.S. Parvathamma v. A. Srinivasan (2003) 4 SCC 705, Shipping Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Machado Bros. (2004) 11 SCC 168, J.P. Srivastava and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Gwalior Sugar Company Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 172 and Shakti Tubes Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2009) 7 SCC 673 and submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court should not have entertained an altogether new plea raised for the first time. 15. Shri Dushyant Dave also relied upon order dated 12.4.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isition of the land belonging to Respondent No. 3 cannot be treated as one made for public purpose because the Appellant had not prepared any housing scheme. 18. The question whether the acquisition of the land in question can be treated as one made for public purpose as defined in Section 3(f) needs to be prefaced by making a reference to the following provisions of the 1894 Act: Section 3(cc) as amended by Act No. 68 of 1984 3.(cc) the expression "corporation owned or controlled by the State" means any body corporate established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, and includes a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State, being a society established or administered by Government and a co-operative society within the meaning of any law relating to co-operative societies for the time being in force in any State, being a co-operative society in which not less than fifty-one per centum of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government, or b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es for the time being in force in any State; (vii) the provision of land for any other scheme of development sponsored by Government or with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by a local authority; (viii) the provision of any premises or building for locating a public office, but does not include acquisition of land for Companies; Section 39 as amended by Act No. 68 of 1984 39. Previous consent of appropriate Government and execution of agreement necessary. -The provisions of Sections 6 to 16 (both inclusive) and Sections 18 to 37 (both inclusive) shall not be put in force in order to acquire land for any company under this Part, unless with the previous consent of the appropriate Government, not unless the Company shall have executed the agreement hereinafter mentioned. 40. Previous enquiry. - (1) Such consent shall not be given unless the appropriate Government be satisfied, either on the report of the Collector under Section 5A, Sub-section (2), or by an enquiry held as hereinafter provided, - (a) that the purpose of the acquisition is to obtain land for the erection....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction of any other work, the time within which and the conditions on which the work shall be executed and maintained and the terms on which the public shall be entitled to use the work. 42. Publication of agreement. -Every such agreement shall, as soon as may be after its execution, be published in the Official Gazette, and shall thereupon (so far as regards the terms on which the public shall be entitled to use the work) have the same effect as if it had formed part of this Act. (3) the terms on which the land shall be held by the Company; (4) where the acquisition is for the purpose of erecting dwelling houses or the provision of amenities connected therewith, the time within which, the conditions on which and the manner in which the dwelling houses or amenities shall be erected or provided; (4A) where the acquisition is for the construction of any building or work for a Company which is engaged or is taking steps for engaging itself in any industry or work which is for a public purpose, the time within which, and the conditions on which, the building or work shall be constructed or executed; and (5) where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t it differently, the acquisition of land for carrying out any education, housing, health or slum clearance scheme by a registered society or a cooperative society can be regarded as an acquisition for public purpose only if the scheme has been approved by the appropriate Government before initiation of the acquisition proceedings. If the acquisition of land for a cooperative society, which is covered by the definition of the term 'company' is for any purpose other than public purpose as defined in Section 3(f), then the provisions of Part VII would be attracted and mandate thereof will have to be complied with. 20. In our view, there is no merit in the argument of learned senior Counsel for the Appellant and Learned Counsel for the State that the Division Bench of the High Court committed an error by recording a finding on the issue of violation of Section 3(f)(vi) of the 1894 Act because Respondent No. 3 had not raised any such plea in the writ petition. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition, Respondent No. 3 made the following averments: The acquisition of any land under the Act for the benefit of the 2nd Respondent will not be for a public purpose and wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so speaks of an inquiry having been got made by the State Government in conformity with the provisions of the 1894 Act and the grant of consent for the acquisition of land for the benefit of society's members. The agreement then goes on to say that the Appellant shall pay to the Government the entire costs of the acquisition of land and expenses. Paragraph 2 of the conditions incorporated in the agreement speaks of transfer of land to the society as to vest in the company. Clause 9(a) of the agreement did provide for token contribution of Rs. 100 by the Deputy Commissioner / Special Deputy Commissioner towards the compensation to be determined by the Assistant Commissioner/Special Land Acquisition Officer, but that is not relatable to any housing scheme framed by the Appellant. It is, thus, evident that the Appellant had not framed any housing scheme and obtained its approval before the issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act. 22. The 1976 Act does provide for framing of various schemes including housing scheme. Section 15 of that Act empowers the BDA to undertake works and incur expenditure for development. In terms of Section 15(1)(a), the BDA is entitled ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1) of the 1894 Act. Even before this Court, no material has been produced to show that, in fact, such a scheme had been framed and approved by the State Government. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court rightly referred to Section 3(f)(vi) and held that in the absence of a housing scheme having been framed by the Appellant, the acquisition of land belonging to Respondent No. 3 was not for a public purpose as defined in Section 3(f)(vi). 24. In Narayana Reddy v. State of Karnataka ILR 1991 (3) KAR 2248, the Division Bench of the High Court considered whether the acquisition of land made on behalf of 7 house building cooperative societies including H.M.T. Employees' Cooperative Society and Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society was for a public purpose as defined in Section 3(f)(vi) or the same was colorable exercise of power by the State Government. A reading of the judgment shows that when the writ petitions questioning the acquisition of land were placed before the learned Single Judge, he felt that the points which were raised by the Petitioners had not been considered in the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in Narayana Raju v. State of Karnataka ILR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liminary and Final Notifications issued by the Government, was for the purpose of influencing the Government and to secure approval for acquisition of the lands and therefore opposed to public policy. The question however, for our consideration is, whether the impugned Notifications are liable to be quashed. In our opinion, once it is clear that the Agreement entered into between the Societies and the agents concerned, under which the purport of one of the clauses was that the agent should influence the Government and to procure Preliminary and Final Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively are opposed to public policy, the impugned Notifications being the product or fruits of such an agreement are injurious to public interest and detrimental to purity of administration and therefore cannot be allowed to stand. As seen from the findings of G.V.K. Rao Inquiry Report, in respect of five Respondent-Societies and the report of the Joint Registrar in respect of Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society, these Societies had indulged in enrolling large number of members illegally inclusive of ineligible members and had also indulged in enrolling larg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government, or by any State Government or Governments, or partly by the Central Government and partly by one or more State Governments. 13. The substituted definition of the expression 'company' in Section 3(e)(iii) will certainly include the Appellant-Society. The substituted definition of the expression 'company' shall include cooperative society, within the meaning of any law relating to cooperative societies other than those referred to in Clause (cc) of Section 3 of the Act. Such cooperative society shall be deemed to be a company, to which provisions of Chapter VII relating to acquisition of land for company shall be applicable. 14. In view of the substituted definition of the expression "public purpose", in Section 3(f)(vi), the provision for carrying out any housing scheme sponsored by the Government or by any authority established by Government for carrying out any such scheme shall be deemed to be a "public purpose". It further says that the provision of land for carrying out any housing scheme with prior approval of the State Government by a cooperative society within the meaning o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the appropriate Government for a housing scheme of a cooperative society. 20. In the present case, a hybrid procedure appears to have been followed. Initially, the Appellant-Society through M/s S.R. Constructions purported to acquire the lands by negotiation and sale by the landholders. Then from terms of the agreement dated 17-3-1988, it appears that the procedure prescribed in Part VII was to be followed and the lands were to be acquired at the cost of the Appellant-Society treating it to be a 'company'. The allegation made on behalf of the Appellant-Society that the housing scheme had been approved by the appropriate Government on 7-11-1984 shall not be deemed to be a prior approval within the meaning of Section 3(f)(vi) but an order giving previous consent as required by Section 39 of Part VII of the Act. In the agreement dated 17-3-1988 it has been specifically stated: And whereas the Government having caused inquiry to be made in conformity with the provisions of the said Act and being satisfied as a result of such inquiry that the acquisition of the said land is needed for the purpose referred to above has consented to the provisions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the State Government under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act granting prior approval and prescribing conditions and restrictions in respect of the use of the lands which were to be acquired for a public purpose. There is no restriction or bar on the part of the Appellant-Society on carving out the size of the plots or the manner of allotment or in respect of construction over the same. That is why the framers of the Act have required the appropriate Government to grant prior approval of any housing scheme presented by any cooperative society before the lands are acquired treating such requirement and acquisition for public purpose. It is incumbent on the part of the appropriate Government while granting approval to examine different aspects of the matter so that it may serve the public interest and not the interest of few who can as well afford to acquire such lands by negotiation in open market. According to us, the State Government has not granted the prior approval in terms of Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act to the housing scheme in question. The power under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act has been exercised for extraneous consideration and at the instance of the persons who had no ro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od vitiated then whatever money that the Appellant has paid, is at its own risk. Once the notification goes no benefit could be derived by the Appellant. We are satisfied that issue of notification was mala fide and it was not for public purpose, as has been observed by this Court, nothing turns on the question of delay and acquiescence. 29. As noticed earlier, in this case also no housing scheme was framed by the Appellant which is sine qua non for treating the acquisition of land for a cooperative society as an acquisition for public purpose within the meaning of Section 3(f). Not only this, the Appellant executed agreement dated 21.2.1988 for facilitating the acquisition of land in lieu of payment of a sum of rupees more than 5 crores. This agreement was similar to the agreement executed by H.M.T. Employees' House Building Society with M/s. S.R. Constructions. The Estate Agent engaged by the Appellant had promised that it will get the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) within four months and three months respectively. The huge amount which the Appellant had agreed to pay to the Estate Agent had no co-relation with the services provided by it. Rather, the am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iety has to be held to be for a public purpose. 6. The Petitioners have not explained the long delay in approaching this Court. The dates mentioned above clearly show that the Petitioners have approached this Court after nearly six years. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners being villagers were unaware of their rights, cannot be accepted. No other reason is given explaining the latches. Apart from there being no merits in the case, the writ petitions are to be dismissed on the ground of long latches, which is not explained. The writ petitions are dismissed. Writ Appeal No. 7953/1996 -Byanna and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. and batch was dismissed by the Division Bench by relying upon the observations made by the learned Single Judge that no middlemen was involved in the transaction; that the acquisition was for a public purpose within the meaning of the 1894 Act and the Appellants had failed to explain inordinate delay. SLP (C) Nos. 12012-12017/1997 titled Byanna and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. were dismissed by this Court by recording the following order: The SLPs are dismissed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion cannot be nullified by entertaining writ petitions filed after three years simply because in H.M.T.'s case the acquisition proceedings were quashed. Writ Appeal Nos. 3810-12/1998 filed against the order of the learned Single Judge were dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 24.8.1998 albeit without assigning reasons. SLP (C) .... CC Nos. 1764-69/1999 were dismissed by this Court on 14.5.1999 by recording the following order: Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. (v) Writ Petition Nos. 7287-7300/1993 were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 3.1.1996 on the ground of delay of four years. Writ Appeal Nos. 920-925/1996 and batch filed against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 7.7.1997 on the ground that the Appellants had failed to explain the delay. SLP(C) Nos. 15337-38/1997 were dismissed by this Court by the usual one line order. (vi) Writ Petition Nos. 30868-70/1996 were dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.11.1996 on the ground that in the earlier round they had failed to convince the Court on the issue of invalidity of acquisition. Writ Appeal No. 146/1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mt. Sumitramma v. State of Karnataka was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 22.11.1995 by relying upon the averment contained in the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 4 that it had submitted a scheme to the State Government and the acquisition was made after approval of the scheme. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the judgment in Narayana Raju's case in support of his conclusion that if the Government decides to acquire the land for a cooperative society on its being satisfied that the land was to put up houses after forming layout, etc., the approval to such a scheme can be inferred from the very fact that the Government was a party to an agreement which ensured that the lands will be utilities for implementing the purpose of the acquisition. Writ Appeal No. 5081/1995 filed against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench on 1.1.1996 by one word order "Dismissed.". SLP(C) No. 10270/1996 was dismissed by this Court on 4.10.1996 by recording the following order: Strong reliance is placed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on this Court's decision H.M.T. House Building Cooperative Society v. Syed Khader a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on was whether there was any inconsistency between the Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961 and the 1894 Act. After examining the relevant constitutional provisions and the two enactments, this Court answered the question in negative. The second question considered by the Court was whether the Government had approved the housing scheme framed by the Appellant. The Court noted that Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Three Men Committee and the State Level Committee had recommended the acquisition of land on behalf of the Appellant and the Government had directed Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore to initiate acquisition proceedings by issuing Section 4(1) Notification and proceeded to observe: Considering the fact that the State Government directed the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies of Bangalore to verify the requirement of the members of the Society and also the fact that the matter was placed before the Committee of three members for scrutiny and thereafter the State Government has conveyed its approval for initiating the proceedings for acquisition of the land in question by letter dated 14-11-1985, it cannot be s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... executed by the society with a third party, as had happened in the H.M.T. cases and the present case whereby the Estate Agent agreed to ensure the acquisition of land within a specified time frame subject to payment of huge money and the fact that agreement entered into between the society and the Government was in the nature of an agreement contemplated by Part VII. While in 1st H.M.T.'s case, the amount paid to M/s. S.R. Constructions was rupees one crore, in the present case, the Appellant had agreed to pay more than rupees five crores for facilitating issue of Notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) and sanction of the layouts and plans by the BDA within a period of less than one year. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Appellant's case is squarely covered by the ratio of the H.M.T. cases and the High Court did not commit any error by relying upon the judgment in 1st H.M.T case for declaring that the acquisition was not for a public purpose. 33. Another facet of the Appellant's challenge to the judgment in the case of Respondent No. 3 is that even if there was no express approval by the State Government to the acquisition of land, the approval ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellants, that the amount paid by the Company was utilized towards payment of a part of interim compensation amount determined by the Land Acquisition Officer on 7-6-1996 and in the absence of this amount, the Nigam was not having sufficient cash balance to make such payment. We may even go to the extent of inferring that in all probability, the Nigam would have advised or persuaded the Company to make advance payment towards lease amount as per the terms of the MOU on a rough-and-ready basis, so that the said amount could be utilized by the Nigam for making payment on account of interim compensation. Therefore, it could have been within the contemplation of both the parties that the amount paid by the Company will go towards the discharge of the obligation of the Nigam to make payment towards interim compensation. Even then, it does not in any way support the Appellants' stand that the compensation amount had not come out of public revenues. Once the amount paid towards advance lease premium, maybe on a rough-and-ready basis, is credited to the account of the Nigam, obviously, it becomes the fund of the Nigam. Such fund, when utilized for the purpose of payment of compens....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e approach adopted by the learned Presiding Officer of the Division Bench in taking up the cases, which are required to be heard by the Single Bench was not approved by the larger Bench. 36. We shall first take up the last ground, which, in our considered view, deserves outright rejection because the Division Bench had decided the writ appeal preferred by the Appellant by relying upon the judgment in 1st H.M.T. case because Learned Counsel appearing for the parties had agreed for that course. This is evident from the following extracts of the opening paragraph of the judgment: When the appeal came up for hearing before us, all the Learned Counsel submitted that by virtue of the subsequent decision of the Supreme court, that the order of the learned Single Judge would no longer survive and that consequently, the writ petition itself would have to be heard on merits. A request was conveyed to the Court that instead of remanding the case to the learned Single Judge at this late stage for a haring on merits, and depending on the view taken the matter once again coming up to the appeal court that it was far from desirable that the appeal court itself should hear the pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....awn, was negatived by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and the Appellant is not shown to have challenged the judgment of the Division Bench and insofar as notification dated 25.6.1999 is concerned, the State Government had withdrawn the same on 15.11.1999. 40. In the end, Shri Dave and Shri Shetty referred to the additional affidavit of Shri A.C. Dharanendraiah, filed on behalf of the Appellant, to show that the Appellant has already spent Rs. 18.73 crores for formation of the layouts and 1791 plots were allotted to the members, out of which, 200 have already constructed their houses. They pointed out that 50% of the land has been given to the BDA for providing civil amenities and 16154 sq. ft. has been given to Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation. Learned Counsel submitted that this is a fit case for invoking the doctrine of prospective overruling so that those who have already constructed houses may not suffer incalculable harm. In support of this submission, the Learned Counsel relied upon the judgments in ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727, Abhey Ram v. Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 421, Baburam v. C.C. Jacob (1999) 3 SCC 362, Somaiya O....