Back
1995 Supreme(Kar) 492
Karnataka High Court
SUBRAMANIM - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 10-12-95
W.P. : 35837 of 1994
A.K.SUBBAIAH, A.S.BOPANNA, ANAND A.MAGADUM, ASHOK B.PATIL, BASAVA PRABHU S.PATIL, D.N.NAJUNDA REDDY, G.V.SHANTHARAJU, H.K.Vasudeva Reddy, H.L.DATTU, H.THIPPERUDRAPPA, JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, K.G.RAGHAVAN, K.L.MANJUNATH, K.T.MOHAN, K.VISHWANATH, KALIMULLA SHARIFF, M.A.Humayun, M.GOVINDA BHAT, M.MAHABALESHWARA GOWDA, M.R.JANARDHAN, M.R.SHAILENDRA, M.SHIVA PRASAD, M.SRINIVAS RAO, P.DAYASHANKAR, PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, RAMDAS P.SABBAN, S.M.BYADAGI, S.N.KESHAVA MURTHY, S.SHIVASWAMY, S.VASUDEVAN, SHAILENDRA KUMAR JHA, SUNDARASWAMY RAMADAS, T.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, T.V.LAKSHMI, T.V.VENKANNA, T.VENUGOPAL REDDY, U.K.VISHWANATH, V.ADAPPA, VIJAYALAKSHMI M.PATIL, Y.K.SHESHAGIRI RAO
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition for a co-operative society was deemed to be for a public purpose, and the presence of judges in the society did not invalidate the acquisition.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Acquisition of lands for Karnataka state judicial department employees' house building co-operative society - Section 4(1), Section 4(2), Section 6 - The court discussed the validity of Section 3(f) of the Land Acquisition Act and the term 'public purpose' as found in the Act. The court also considered the argument of 'fraud on power' and 'colourable exercise of power' in relation to the acquisition. The court examined the agreement between the society and M/s. Devatha builders and its implications on the acquisition proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The Karnataka state judicial department employees' house building co-operative society sought acquisition of lands for housing purposes. The petitioners alleged that the acquisition violated constitutional articles and directive principles, and made allegations against the judges who became members of the society. The petitioners also raised concerns about the involvement of middlemen and fraudulent practices in the acquisition proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition was made for a public purpose, specifically for providing house sites to the employees of the judicial department. The court rejected the argument of 'fraud on power' and 'colourable exercise of power', stating that the presence of judges in the society did not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. The court also examined the agreement with M/s. Devatha builders and its compliance with the acquisition process.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, the alleged violation of constitutional provisions, and the involvement of middlemen in the acquisition proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition for a co-operative society was for a public purpose, and the presence of judges in the society did not invalidate the acquisition. The court also examined the agreement with M/s. Devatha builders to ensure compliance with the acquisition process.
Final Decision: The court upheld the validity of the acquisition for the society and rejected the allegations of fraudulent practices and improper exercise of power. The court also examined the agreement with M/s. Devatha builders to ensure compliance with the acquisition process.
( 1 ) THESE writ petitions are preferred against certain acquisition of lands made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the l. a. act") for the Karnataka state judicial department employees' house building co-operative society limited, high court building, Bangalore. The first two of these writ petitions are filed styling to be public interest litigation by two practising advocates of this court and the third one is filed by an owner of a piece of land involved in the acquisition.
( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions can'be stated thus the Karnataka state judicial department employees' house building co-operative society (in short "the society") was registered under the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 on 11-8-1983. It seems the members of the society includes the members of the judicial department, members of the subordinate judiciary and also certain sitting, transferred and retired judges of this court. It seems the society originally made an agreement with individual owners for purchase of land, but ultimately it decided to request the government to initiate proceedings for acquiring the lands under the land acquisition act. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the gazettee on 18-2-1988. It was published in the local newspapers "sanjevani" and "samyukta karnataka" on 12-2-1988 and 13-2-1988. Public notice under Section 4 (2) was published in the village chavadi on 14-3-1988. Declaration under Section 6 was published in the gazettee on 27-2-1989. declaration under Section 6 was published in the local news-papers "sanjevani" and "prajavani" was on 25-2-1989 and 1-3-1989. Publication in the village chavadi was done on 15-3-1989. Award came to be passed on 13-3-1991. Under this acquisition an extent of 159 acres 261/4 guntas of land in the village allalasandra were acquired.
( 3 ) SUBSEQUENT to the formation of the society it seems the society entered into an agreement with one M/s. Devatha builders on 12-11-1986 long before the notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the gazettee. it is also seen from the records that the government has approved the acquisition of the lands for the society on 30-8-1985. The Bangalore development authority (in short "bda") has approved the layout on 28-11-1992 and it seems the allotment of sites has been made by the society (1700 sites) on 4-1-1993. At this stage these writ petitions came to be filed before this court.
( 4 ) WE think it now necessary to extract the allegations made by the petitioners in each of these petitions and also the statement of objections filed by the respondents.
( 5 ) WRIT petition No. 35837 of 1994 is filed by a practising Advocate of this court as a public interest litigation. The petitioner alleges in the petition mainly on the ground that the acquisition violates articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and articles 38 and 39 of the directive principles of state policy of the constitution. The petitioner alleges that he learns that certain judges who own houses in the city of Bangalore have become members of the society. The petition contains Annexure-A the list of sitting judges and Annexure-B the names of retired judges, out of which some of them own houses in the Bangalore city. The petitioner states that writ petition nos. 3995 and 6156 of 1989 were filed by certain owners of land on the ground that final declaration was published beyond the limitation of one year and the award was published beyond the period of limitation and that those writ petitions were dismissed by shivappa, j. On 17-11-1992. It is stated that the appeals preferred against the said decision are pending. The petitioner refers to certain correspondences made with the society by which he wanted some information from the society with regard to membership. The petitioner challenges the validity of section 3 (f) of the Land Acquisition
