2016 Supreme(SC) 718

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
R. Rajashekar & Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
Trinity House Building Co-Operative Society & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 9091-9119, 9120-9148 & 9149-9152 of 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 13656-13684, 18090-18118 & 23336-23339 of 2004)
Decided On : 15-09-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
When land was sought to be acquired in favour of the respondent-society, it acquires right to challenge quashing of acquisition proceedings by a court of law.
Parties impleaded as respondents in the Writ Appeals before the High Court have right to file SLP before Supreme Court.
Acquisition at the instance of a middleman in favour of a society cannot be said to be for public purpose.
Acquisition of lands of two different villages at the instance of a middleman amounts to mala fide exercise of power by the state government is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
State government remaining silent spectator to the proceedings before High Court as well as Supreme Court, neither actively defending the acquisition of lands nor opposing it also not passing an award for long time. Further, taking a stand to make an award u/s 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 if the validity of the acquisition of the lands in question is upheld. Stand of the State deprecated.
When the acquisition is held void ab initio, the land owners can challenge the acquisition at any point of time even in the collateral proceedings.
Middleman selling land to third parties during pendency of the writ proceedings playing fraud on land owners as also on the society, such purchasers are not entitled to any relief.
Persons neither approaching High Court in writ proceedings nor the Supreme Court by filing SLP cannot be impleaded.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 226 - Locus standi – Land sought to be acquired in favour of the respondent-society – Notifications issued – Respondent society acquires right to challenge quashing of acquisition proceedings by a court of law. (Para 24)

       (1995) 2 SCC 326 – Referred

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 136 r/w Supreme Court Rules – Parties impleaded as respondents in the Writ Appeals before the High Court – Have right to file SLP before Supreme Court. (Para 24)

       (c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 3(f)(vi) – Parties entering into agreement for sole purpose of getting lands of the owners acquired for the respondent-society for which one of the parties was authorized as agent – The agreement required and authorized Mr. S. Rangarajan to influence the state government and get the lands acquired – Held, opposed to public policy – Neither a scheme framed by the respondent-Society nor prior approval granted by the state government – Acquisition proceedings cannot be said to be one for ‘public purpose’. (Para 30, 34)

       (1991) 3 SCC 67; (1995) 2 SCC 677 – Relied upon

       ILR 1991 Kar 2248 – Cited with approval

       (2003) 1 SCC 228 – Distinguished

       (1995) 3 SCC 128; (2012) 3 SCC 727; (2012) 10 SCC 184; SLP (C) No. 10270 of 1996; SLP (C) No. 14681 of 1995 – Referred

       (d) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4(1) and 6(1) – Respondent-society fraudulently enrolling members – Government not considering report of G.V.K. Rao Committee – Acquisition of lands of two different villages at the instance of a middleman – Amounts to mala fide exercise of power by the state government – Notifications issued u/s 4(1) and 6(1) suffering from not only legal mala fides but also legal malice, amounting to colourable exercise of power by the state government – Bad in law and liable to be quashed. (Para 37)

       (e) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4(1) and 6(1) – State government remaining silent spectator to the proceedings before High Court as well as Supreme Court – Neither actively defending the acquisition of lands nor opposing it – No award passed – Submitting to make an award u/s 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 if the validity of the acquisition of the lands in question is upheld – Stand of the State deprecated. (Para 37)

       (f) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11A r/w Section 24(1)(a), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Award not passed within two years of acquisition, as required u/s 11A, due to order of status quo during proceedings before High Court – Whether saved by section 24(1)(a) – Question left open. (Para 39, 40, 41)

       (g) Administration of justice – Delay and laches – Original land owners approaching High Court after long lapse of time opposing acquisition proceedings – Proceedings held void ab initio on ground of being contrary to section of LA Act – Original owners cannot be denied opportunity to challenge the acquisition – They can do so at any point of time even in the collateral proceedings. (Para 42)

       (h) Administration of justice – Persons purchasing land during pendency of Writ petitions – Acquisition quashed, becoming void ab initio – Origin al land owners executing power of Attorneys in favour of Mr. S. Rangarajan for getting the lands acquired in favour of respondent-Society – No mandate for selling land to anybody other than respondent-Society – Such sales a fraud on land owners and the respondent-society by the middleman – Such sales also contrary to law in respect of agricultural lands – The sales of lands to appellant-purchasers held void ab intio – Appellant-purchasers not entitled to any relief. (Para 43, 44)

       (i) Administration of justice – Impleadment – Applicant claiming to be Power of Attorneys holder of some of the lands in question and agreements of sale – Neither approaching High Court in writ proceedings nor the Supreme Court by filing SLP – Power of Attorneys not conferring any right upon him at this time – Application also barred by Land Reforms Act, 1952, provisions of the Specific Relief Act as well as the Limitation Act – Impleadment Applications rejected being wholly unsustainable in law. (Para 45)

       Facts of the case:

       On 09.01.1984, Trinity House Building Co-Operative Society was registered with the object of providing sites for building residential houses for its members.

       On 12.03.1985, the said society entered into an agreement with M/S Srinivasa Enterprises essentially for getting the lands acquired in favour of the respondent-Society. As per the agreement, a contract of agency was created in favour of Mr. S. Rangarajan to act as a middleman between the respondent-Society and the State Government to get the lands mentioned therein acquired in favour of the respondent-Society.

       Between 06.05.1987 and 12.06.1989, the land owners also executed power of Attorney’s in favour of Mr. S. Rangarajan.

       On 15.04.1988, an agreement was entered into between the state government of Karnataka and the respondent-Society as required under Section 39 read with Section 41 of Part VII of the L.A. Act.

       The state government of Karnataka issued the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act proposing to acquire the lands in question to the extent of 92 acres 38 guntas in Avalahalli and Herohalli villages of Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District in favour of the respondent-Society.

       Subsequently, around 33 Objection Petitions were filed before the Land Acquisition Officer by the landowners, which were all rejected under the inquiry conducted by him under Section 5-A(2) of the L.A. Act.

       On 18.03.1999, the state government issued the final notification under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act declaring that the lands were required for public purpose without proper application of mind to the report received from the Land Acquisition Officer.

       The landowners challenged the validity of the same before the High Court. The single Judge of the High Court quashed the acquisition notifications.

       The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the single Judge.

       Finding of the Court:

       Acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.

       Result: Applications disposed of.