1. Writ Petitioner claims to be legal heir of the original land owner in respect of Sy.No.66/1 measuring 14 guntas, Sy.No.66/5 measuring 26 guntas and Sy.No.67/3 measuring 24 guntas in Dommalur Village, Bangalore North Taluk, which it appears was subject matter of acquisition proceedings in terms of the notification issued by the State Government for the benefit of the third respondent-Amarajyothi House Building Cooperative Society Limited [for short ‘the society’].

2. The acquisition proceedings got concluded and the land acquisition officer after taking over possessing of the subject lands notified for acquisition under this notification, had handed over possession of the same in favour of the third respondent-society.

3. It appears the third respondent had formed a layout and allotted many such sites in favour of its members and pursuant thereto, had executed sale deeds in favour of members who have been allotted sites.

4. It is the version of some of such allottees of sites that thereafter they have put up construction with necessary permission of the municipal authorities and some of them have in turn sold the sites itself to third parties who claim that they are in possession and have made use of the sites in question for construction of residential or other buildings and some such sites either in favour of original allottees or subsequent purchasers from them have remained vacant also.

5. It is the version of the petitioner claiming as a legal heir of the original land owner whose name figured in the notifications issued by the State Government for acquisition proceedings that many such acquisitions made by the State Government for the benefit of private house building co-operative societies were all bristling with fraud and collusion amongst the authorities, the societies and middlemen who had acted as agents between the authorities and such societies holding out assurances to them that they will ensure some lands will be acquired by the state government for the benefit of such societies and they can in turn further develop the same and such societies had also taken public for a ride by extending membership to large number of persons and in one such case as notice by the supreme court more than four thousand persons were given membership of the very third respondent-society which was ore an act of fraud than for any bona fide purpose of forming a co-operative layout for the benefit of the members etc., and when such acquisition proceedings had been questioned before the High Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court found as a fact that such acquisition proceedings are vitiated by ulterior considerations for which the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been misused and that the role played by the middlemen had vitiated the entire acquisition proceedings due to fraud and deceit and the High Court had quashed many such acquisition proceedings pursuant to the notifications which had been called in question before the court by the respective land owners. Such an order is to be found in one of the reported Judgments of this court rendered in the case of ‘NARAYANA REDDY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA’ reported ILR 1991 KAR 2248.

6. It appears private co-operative societies who were miffed by the Judgment of the High Court, had carried the matter to the Supreme Court by seeking special leave and all such matters came to be disposed of by the Supreme Court in terms of its Judgment rendered in the case of ‘HMT HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs. SYED KHADER’, reported in ILR 1995 KAR 1619 (SC).

7. While affirming the Judgment of the High Court rendered in the case of NARAYANA REDDY’s case [supra] and similar Judgments, the supreme court went further in observing that the benefit of quashing such acquisition proceedings and the notifications issued for such purpose will also enure in favour of such of land owners who perhaps might not have chosen to question the leg