Back
2011 Supreme(Kar) 139
High Court of Karnataka
D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR
Venkataramanappa, Bangalore & Others
Versus
State of Karnataka, Bangalore & Others
Writ Petition No. 9412 of 2007 (LA-RES)
Decided on: 22-02-2011
For the Petitioners:A.S. Mahesha & Srinand Pachhapure, Vinod Prasad, Prakash T Hebbar, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R. Omkumar, AGA Prashanth, Advocates, T.S. Amar Kumar, Lawyers Inc.
Fraud and deception vitiate all proceedings, including land acquisition proceedings, and that the State Government cannot misuse or abuse its statutory powers to confer benefits on private societies.
Headnote:
Writ petition filed by 4 out of 16 petitioners challenging the acquisition of land for a housing society. Petitioners claimed they were still in possession of the land and that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated by fraud and deception. The State Government and the society contended that the acquisition was for a public purpose, that possession of the land had been taken, and that the petitioners were barred by delay and laches.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were among the original 16 petitioners who had challenged the acquisition of land for a housing society. The petitioners claimed that they were still in possession of the land and that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated by fraud and deception. The State Government and the society contended that the acquisition was for a public purpose, that possession of the land had been taken, and that the petitioners were barred by delay and laches.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated by fraud and deception. The court held that the society had not acted in a bona fide manner and that the acquisition proceedings were not for a public purpose. The court also found that the State Government had not acted in a bona fide manner and that the officials of the State Government had misled the court.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition proceedings were vitiated by fraud and deception. 2. Whether the acquisition was for a public purpose. 3. Whether the petitioners were barred by delay and laches.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated by fraud and deception. The court held that the society had not acted in a bona fide manner and that the acquisition proceedings were not for a public purpose. The court also found that the State Government had not acted in a bona fide manner and that the officials of the State Government had misled the court. The court held that the petitioners were not barred by delay and laches.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the acquisition proceedings. The court also directed the Registrar General of the court to initiate contempt proceedings against the officials of the State Government who had misled the court.
1. This writ petition filed in the year 2007 comprising of as many as 16 petitioners with payment of court fee for as many petitioners, but with a single number, purporting to be in terms of the relevant rules and orders passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, governing registration of petitions at the relevant time, has remained for examination only in respect of petitioners 2, 10, 13 and 16 and though originally one advocate Sri Vinod Prasad, had filed power for all the petitioners, with developments like the other petitioners having found solace by entering into compromise with the fourth respondent-house building cooperative society and writ petition in so far as such petitioners is concerned, having not survived for further examination, has remained before the court for examination at the instance of only the aforesaid four of the original sixteen writ petitioners.
2. As of now, second petitioner [Kempaiah] claims interest in an extent of 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.107 of Nelakadaranahalli village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, 10th petitioner [Nanjundaiah, since deceased by his legal representative N Arasappa] claims interest in an extent of 1 acre 32 guntas of land in Sy.No.108/1 of the very village; 13th petitioner [Hanumaiah] claims interest in an extent of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.115 of very village; and 16th petitioner [Chandra] claims interest in an extent of 38 acres in Sy.No.100 of the very village. The petitioners have sought for the following relief:
i) issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned notification in No.LAQ(1)SR 3/87-88 dated: 22.11.1988 published in the Karnataka Gazette on 01.12.1988 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-“B” and in No.KME 242 LAQ B 84 dated: 04.12.1989 issued by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-“C”, as illegal, null and void and unenforceable in law.
((a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Notification under Section 16(2) No.SLAO/HBCS/8/87-88 dated: 23.10.1992 vide Annexure-P, No.SLAO/HBCS/8/87-88 dated: 19.01.1993 vide Annexure-Q and No.IAO:HBCS:8:87-88 dated: 01.03.2005 vide Annexure-R and communication dated: 13.11.1992, 20.01.1993 and 26.07.2004 ordering to hand over possession to the 4th respondent at Annexure-S1 to S3;
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Government to consider the request of the petitioners and others to withdraw and de-notify from land acquisition proceedings the lands in Survey Nos. 1, 2, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 115/P and 123 of Nelakadaranahalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore.
(ii) Issue any other writ or order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
3. Writ petitioners are before this court in the wake of the state government having acted at the behest of fourth respondent-house building cooperative society, which moved the government for acquisition of lands in as many as 4 villages namely Laggare, Jarakabande Kaval, Nelakadaranahalli and Jakkur, in all measuring 97 acres in different survey numbers of these village, but not acting by itself, but having availed of the services of a middleman viz., one V.M. Mariswamappa, through an agreement entered into between this agent and forth respondent-house building cooperative society in terms of agreement dated 21-9-1984 [copy at Annexure-M1 to the writ petition].
4. The government, it appears, became active for acquiring this extent of land in favour of the society for such purpose and records had been built up and such developments can be inferred from the annexure attached to the statement of objections filed on behalf of first respondent-state government, filed today in the court during the course of hearing.
5. Earliest developments can be found in Annuexre-R5 dated 18-11-1987, originating from the state government i.e. the Revenue Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, addressed to the special Depu
