The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 3 (f) of the Land Acquisition Act, particularly in relation to the approval of a housing scheme sponsored by a co-operative society and the determination of whether the acquisition was for a 'public purpose' as contemplated by the Act.

( 1 ) THESE appeals are filed by a housing co-operative society hich was one of the respondents in the writ petitions decided by the learned single judge by a judgment dated 6-9-1996. The learned judge quashed the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act published on 1-12-1988 on the ground that the requirement of Section 3 (f) (vi) of the act has not been fulfilled. The learned judge observed that the counsel appearing for the government did not produce any record to show that there was a scheme submitted by the appellant-society and the same was approved by the government.

( 2 ) RELEVANT portion of Section 3 (f) reads as follows:"the expression 'public purpose' includes: (vi) the provision of land for carrying out any educational, housing, health or slum clearance scheme sponsored by government or by any authority established by government for carrying out any such scheme, or, with the prior approval of the appropriate government, by a local authority, or a society registered under the societies Registration Act, 1860, or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a state, or a co-operative society within the meaning of any law relating to co-operative societies for the time being in force in any state".

( 3 ) IN this appeal it is contended on behalf of the appellants that after thorough scrutiny, the government gave approval to the scheme and cleared the acquisition by its order dated 13-11-1987. The communication dated 13-11-1987 which is addressed to the special deputy commissioner, Bangalore, reads as follows:"i am directed to convey the approval of government for initiating the acquisition proceedings for an extent of 97. 00 acres of land in laggere-11-00, j. b. kaval-8-23, nelakaderanahalli-12-17 and jakkur 65-00 village in favour of Karnataka gruha nirmana sahakara sangh as recommended by the 3 men committee and the s. l. c. c. subject to the following conditions: (1) out of total extent of 97-00 acres, the land in s. Nos. 2, 3, 8 jakkur village which is coming under the park zone as per the dcp may be excluded while issuing notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the present. Subsequently, separate notification under Section 4 (1) be issued for this extent after the housing and urban development department issues necessary orders changing the use of land from non-residential purpose to residential purpose. (2) the proceeding pending under the u. l. c. ac. And the Land Reforms Act shall be finalised before issue of notification under Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The matter should be perused with the concerned authorities and see that the orders are issued within the time-limit mentioned above. (3) the extent of land to be notified under Section 4 (1) may be selected out of the list of sy. Nos. Furnished by the 3 men committee". the same is signed by the under secretary to government, revenue department. This communication has been filed by the counsel for the appellants along with la. We have also verified the record produced by the government advocate. The said communication finds a place in the file. But, it was not produced before the learned single judge.

( 4 ) THE counsel for the 1st respondent contends that the order dated 13-11-1987 cannot be construed to be prior approval of the government to the housing scheme sponsored by the appellant-co-operative society. The approval, according to the learned counsel, is only for initiation of the acquisition proceedings under Section 4 (1 ). It is contended that no housing scheme was sponsored by the appellant-society nor was it approved by the government. We find it difficult to accept this contention. On a perusal of the relevant record produced by the learned government advocate, it transpires that the appellant-society submitted the application on 13-11-1984 requesting for acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of providing house sites to its