2012 Supreme(SC) 97

2012 (3) Supreme 209
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. — Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7425-26 of 2002
with
Civil Appeal Nos. 774-778 of 2005
Decided on : 2-2-2012

IMPORTANT POINT
Even though there is no period of limitation for filing petitions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner should approach the Court without loss of time and if there is delay, then cogent explanation should be offered for the same.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894- Section 3(f)(vi)- Appeals against orders passed by High Court whereby acquisition of lands by State Government for benefit of appellant was quashed- High Court quashed the acquisition proceedings mainly on the grounds of violation of provisions of ‘the 1894 Act’ and the manipulations made by appellant through the Estate Agent for acquiring land- No merit in contention of appellant that High Court committed an error by recording a finding on the issue of violation of Section 3(f)(vi) of the 1894 Act as respondent No. 3 had not raised any such plea in the writ petition-. Although, the appellant may not have been required to frame a scheme in strict conformity with provisions of 1976 Act and Housing Board Act, but it was bound to frame scheme disclosing the total number of members eligible for allotment of sites, the requirement of land including the size of the plots and broad indication of the mode and manner of development of the land as a layout- The State Government could then apply mind whether or not the housing scheme framed by the appellant should be approved -No document produced by appellant before High Court to show that it had prepared a housing scheme and same had been approved by State Government before issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act- Hence, High Court rightly held that acquisition in question was not for a public purpose as defined in Section 3(f)(vi) of 1894 Act- Apart from that , Estate Agent engaged by appellant had promised that it would 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 amount was charged by Estate Agent for manipulating the State apparatus and facilitating the acquisition of land and sanction of layout etc. without any obstruction- Such an agreement was clearly violative of Section 23 of the Contract Act-Appeals dismissed (Paras 20 to 23, 29)

        Constitution of India,1950-Aricle 226- Limitation for filing a petition under -The framers of Constitution have not prescribed any period of limitation for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and it is only one of the several rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by the superior Courts that the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is essentially an equity jurisdiction, should not be exercised in favour of a person who approaches the Court after long lapse of time and no cogent explanation is given for the delay- No hard and fast rule can be laid down or a straight-jacket formula can be adopted for deciding whether or not Apex Court or the High Court should entertain a belated petition under filed under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution and each case must be decided on its own facts (Paras 8, 9)

        Doctrine of prospective overruling-Applicability of-Held instant case was not a fit case for invoking doctrine of prospective overruling as that would result in conferring legitimacy to the influence of money power over the rule of law, which is the edifice of our Constitution- Unscrupulous elements in the society use money and other extraneous factors for influencing the decision making process by Executive- In this case also Estate Agent, with whom appellant had entered into an agreement had played crucial role in acquisition of land- Estate Agent charged huge money from appellant for getting notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the 1894 Act and sanction of layout plan by the BDA.-Not too difficult for any person of reasonable prudence to presume that appellant had parted with crores of rupees knowing fully well that a substantial portion thereof would be used by Estate Agent for manipulating the State apparatus- Hence held that there was no justification to invoke the doctrine of prospective overruling and legitimize what had been found by High Court to be ex-facie illegal (Para 41)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeals have been filed against orders passed by High Court whereby acquisition of lands by State Government for benefit of appellant was quashed. High Court had quashed the acquisition proceedings mainly on the grounds of violation of provisions of ‘the 1894 Act’ and the manipulations made by appellant through the Estate Agent for acquiring land.

       Findings of the Court :

        The Court held that No document was produced by appellant before High Court to show that it had prepared a housing scheme and same had been approved by State Government before issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act. Hence, High Court rightly held that acquisition in question was not for a public purpose as defined in Section 3(f)(vi) of 1894 Act. Apart from that , Estate Agent engaged by appellant had promised that it would 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 amount was charged by Estate Agent for manipulating the State apparatus and facilitating the acquisition of land and sanction of layout etc. without any obstruction. Such an agreement was clearly violative of Section 23 of the Contract Act. Appeals were dismissed