ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 6.10.2005 of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, whereby writ appeals tiled by the Appellants against order dated 9.3.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 27205 of 2001 were dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts from the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 24972/2005.

4. By Notification dated 22.12.1984 issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State Government proposed the acquisition of 165 acres. 30 gunthas land of Nagavara and other villages for the benefit of Respondent No. 1. The declaration u/s 6(1) of the Act was issued on 21.2.1986. Some of the landowners filed writ petitions for quashing the two notifications by contending that the acquisition was not for a public purpose and that the proceedings were vitiated due to arbitrariness and malafides. The writ petitions were allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by detailed judgment titled Narayana Reddy v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1991 Karnataka 2248. In its judgment, the Division Bench considered the acquisition of land made in favor of seven housing societies by different notifications issued between 1984 and 1988 and declared that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated due to arbitrariness, malafide and violation of the provisions of the Act. In paragraphs 25 to 28 of the judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court specifically adverted to the case of Respondent No. 1 and found serious violations of the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. 1959 and held that Respondent No. 1 had succeeded in securing the acquisition of land despite these violations. The Division Bench also referred to Section 23 of the Contract Act, judgment of this Court in Rattan Chand Hira Chand Vs. Askar Nawaz Jung (Dead) by Lrs and Others, (1991) 3 SCC 67 and held as under:

Applying the ratio of the above judgment, there can be no doubt that the Agreements entered into between the six Respondent-Societies and their respective agents in which one of the condition was payment of huge sums of money by the Society to the agent in consideration of which the agent had to get the Preliminary 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 large number of bogus members. The only inference that is possible from this is that the office bearers of the Societies had entered into unholy alliance with the respective agents for the purpose of making money, as submitted for the Petitioners. Otherwise, there is no reason as to why such an Agreement should have been brought about by the office bearers of the Society and the agents. Unless these persons had the intention of making huge profits as alleged by the Petitioners, they would not have indulged in entering into such Agreements and would not have indulged