IMPORTANT POINT
Where issue of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was mala fide and it was not for public purpose, delay in filing the writ petition for challenging the notification is inconsequential.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 5A and 6—Acquisition of land mala fide, not for a bona fide purpose—Delay in challenging validity of notification not fatal—A notification was issued in year 1984 for acquiring land for appellant Society—Award was passed on basis of that notification in year 1987—Writ petition filed after about 14 years challenging validity of the notification alleging that this notification was very adversely commented by the Karnataka High Court—In that judgment it was held that the whole acquisition proceedings stand vitiated on account of fraud, appellant Society was also found to be not bona fide housing society—Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on ground of being hopelessly barred by time and as the writ petitioners participated in the proceedings they have acquiesced in the matter—Writ appeal—Division Bench held that the entire acquisition on behalf of appellant-society was actuated with fraud, therefore, delay could not be a good ground to dismiss the writ petition—There are number of judgments in which such acquisition of land has been set aside—Supreme Court affirmed the order of Karnataka High Court and held that the whole exercise of acquiring the land by various societies including the present appellant-society was actuated with mala fide and quashed all acquisitions—Whether delay in filing writ petitions challenging the notification was fatal—(No)—When the basic notification under which the present land is sought to be acquired stood vitiated then whatever money that appellant has paid to land owners, is at its own risk.
Held : In this background, when the acquisition has been found to be totally mala fide and not for bona fide purpose, the ground of delay and acquiescence in the present case has no substance. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade us that as the amount in question has been accepted by the respondents, it is not open for them now to wriggle out from that agreement. It may be that the appellant might have tried to settle out the acquisition but when the whole acquisition emanates from the aforesaid tainted notification any settlement on the basis of that notification cannot be validated. The fact remains that when the basic notification under which the present land is sought to be acquired stood 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. Learned Counsel for respondents raised other pleas like decree for partition was granted among brothers & they were not made parties, we are not going into those questions when we are satisfied that when acquisition stand vitiated on account of mala fide, nothing remains further.(Para 6)

JUDGMENT

A.K. Mathur, J.—These appeals are directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.2294 of 1999 dated 17.1.2000 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the order dated 11.11.1998 in Writ Petition No.30622 of 1998 passed by learned Single Judge for the reasons mentioned in Writ Appeal No.2188 of 1998 disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court on 17.1.2000 and the order dated 22.3.2002 passed by the Division Bench in the Review Petition No.156 of 2000 in W.A. No. 2294 of 1999.

2. This case has a chequered history, therefore, in order to deal with it, it will be necessary to refer to certain facts. A notification was issued on 22.12.1984 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) for acquiring 176 acres and 5 guntas of land in Nagavara village of Bangalore North Taluk. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 21.2.1986 and the award was passed on the basis of the aforesaid notification on 16.11.1987. It was alleged that the possession of the land was taken on different dates up to the year 1992. It was alleged that possession of 31 acres and 21 guntas of land including an area measuring 1 acre and 25 guntas situated in Survey No.78/4 of Nagavara village was taken on 6.8.1988. Aggrieved against the aforesaid notification and the award private petitioners filed writ petition assailing the validity thereof on variety of grounds. It was alleged that this land measuring 8 acres and 2 guntas was owned jointly by a family comprising 5 brothers, namely; Pattadi Haumanthappa, Pattadi Venkateshappa, Pattadi Nannappa, Pattadi Lakshmaiah and Pattadi Nagappa, all deceased and survived by their legal heirs, who filed the writ petition. The main grievance of these petitioners was that this notification was very adversely commented by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Narayana Reddy. V. State of Karnataka [ ILR 1991 Kar. 2248] and the decision of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2336-2343 of 1997 and connected matters which were disposed of on 5.3.1998. In that judgment it was held that the whole acquisition proceedings stand vitiated on account of fraud, the appellant Society was also found to be not bonafide housing society, therefore, on the basis of the same reasoning the present notification was also challenged and it was urged that the impugned notification also suffered from same vice of mala fide, therefore, it should be quashed. It was alleged that the delay in approaching the Court was irrelevant since the validity of the same notification in which other lands were acquired along with the present land has been found to be void.

3. This writ petition was contested by the appellant-society as respondent and it was alleged that it was hopelessly barred by time being delayed by 14 years and it was also submitted that the writ petitioners had participated in the inquiry under section 5A of the Act and have also received substantial amount from the appellant-society pursuant to the agreement executed in their favour. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of being hopelessly barred by time and the writ petitioners participated in the proceedings therefore they have acquiesced in the matter. Aggrieved against this order passed by learned Single Judge, a writ appeal was filed by the respondents which came to be allowed by the Division Bench for the reasons mentioned in another writ appeal decided by the same Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court on 17.1.2000. In that writ appeal the Division Bench held that the entire acquisition on behalf of the appellant-society was actuated with fraud as held in Narayana Reddy v. State of Karnataka [ILR 1991 Kar. 2248]. In that case it was held as follows :

“As seen from the findings of G.V.K. Rao Inquiry Report, in respect of five respondent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 123

IMPORTANT POINTWhere issue of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was mala fide and it was not for public purpose, delay in filing the writ petition for challenging the notification is inconsequential.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Where issue of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was mala fide and it was not for public purpose, delay in filing the writ petition for challenging the notification is inconsequential.