Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 413
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MUKHERJEE AND BUDIHAL R B, JJ.
SEETHARAM S/O LATE BACHAPPA AND ORS. – APPELLANT
VS.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. – RESPONDENT
Writ Appeal Nos. 818849 of 2014 (LARES) C/w Writ Appeal No. 958 of 2014 (LARES) In Writ Appeal Nos. 818849 of 2014
Decided On : 13-04-2017
For the Appellant :Sri Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate, a/w Sri M S Rajendra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Sri V Sreenidhi, Sri D N Nanjunda Reddy, Senior Advocate, a/w
Ms Farah Fathima, Advocate, Sri R Badrinath, Advocate, Sri Jayakumar S Patil,
Senior Advocate, a/w Sri Ashok K L, Advocate, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Senior
Advocate, a/w Sri Subramanya, R, Advocate, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Advocate, a/w Sri B A Ramakrishna, Advocate, Sri H S Prakash, Advocate, Sri R Chandrashekar, Advocate, Sri Swamynathan, Advocate, Sri M S Ashwin Kumar, Advocate, Sri N D Sathish Chandra, Advocate.
Headnote:LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 – Section 3(f)(vi), 39, 41 – Acquisition of land for housing society – Appointment of middleman for influencing Government to acquire land for housing society – Society neither preparing any housing scheme nor getting prior approval of Government – Non-compliance of mandatory requirements of Section 3(f)(vi) – Power exercised for extraneous consideration and not for public purpose – Acquisition held, vitiated.
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 – Section 11 – Consent award – Acquisition of land for housing society – Consent given by middleman by virtue of affidavits and power of attorney executed by illiterate land owners – Compensation also received by middleman and not land owners – Very foundation of acquisition held,vitiated – Consent award is no consequence – Landowner can challenge acquisition proceedings.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – Article 142 – Doctrine of prospective overruling – Land acquired for housing society without framing housing scheme and getting approval by Government – Evidence indicating that society paid money to middleman for influencing Government to acquire land for benefit of society – Merely because forming of layout and allotment of plot to members of society, itself not sufficient to apply doctrine of prospective overruling.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – Article 226 – Delay and laches – Acquisition of land for public purpose – Acquisition found to be vitiated on grounds of fraud and mala fides – Delay by land owners in approaching court, is irrelevant.
The Hon’ble Single Judge dismissed a batch of writ petitions by a common judgment and order dated February 25, 2014, primarily, on the ground of delay and laches. In all those writ petitions, the writ petitioners claimed themselves to be the owners of various pieces of land, which had been the subject matter of acquisition by the State Government for the benefit of the Bengaluru City Cooperative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Society” in short).
2. The writ petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings, inter alia, on the grounds that the said acquisition was not for the public purpose, but was initiated in violation of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the said Act” in short) inasmuch the society did not prepare any housing scheme nor there was any prior approval by the State Government to any housing scheme as mandatorily required by Section 3(f)(vi) of the said Act. It was contended that the acquisition was at the instance of a middleman engaged by the said society for influencing the Government to acquire those lands, by using his influence and monetary power, although no public purpose was involved. The writ petitioners contended that, while considering challenge to the very same acquisition, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of HMT House Building Cooperative Society Vs. Syed Khader and others, reported in 1995(2) SCC 677, wherein it was held that the acquisition was vitiated by fraud and was not for public purpose, on account of non-framing of any scheme by the society and in the absence of prior approval of the scheme as contemplated under Section 3(f)(vi) of the said Act, and on account of involvement of a middlemen, the entire acquisition was quashed by this Court and, therefore, the writ petitioners prayed for the similar reliefs.
3. Admittedly, the very same acquisition proceedings were challenged in various writ petitions by the interested owners. One Shrimati Geetha Devi Shah filed a writ petition assailing the notification of acquisition, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 16419 of 1992. P.Ramaiah and others filed yet another Writ Petition challenging the acquisition being No. 10406 of 1991.
4. During pendency of the aforementioned writ petitions, the State Government issued a notification under Section 48(1) of the said Act of 1894 for de-notification of some of the lands owned by said Shrimati Geetha Devi Shah. The said notification was challenged by the society by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 29603 of 1994.
5. The Hon’ble Single Judge, by judgment and order dated November 18, 1996, dismissed Writ Petition No. 16419 of 1992 filed by said Shrimati Geetha Devi Shah on the grounds of delay and laches. Simultaneously, Writ Petition No. 29603 of 1994 filed by the society, challenging the aforesaid de-notification, was, also, dismissed.
6. The said judgment and order of the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 16419 of 1992 was challenged by said Shrimati Geetha Devi Shah by filing an appeal before the Division Bench, which was registered as Writ Appeal No. 9913 of 1996.
7. The appeal Bench held that the Hon’ble Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the grounds of delay and laches and, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of HMT House Building Cooperative Society (supra), inter alia, held that there was no housing scheme approved by the State Government and there was no compliance with the mandatory requirement as contemplated in Section 3(f)(vi) of the said Act. It was, further, held that the Special Land Acquisition Officer submitted his report without giving an opportunity of hearing to the said Shrimati Geetha Devi Shah and this was sufficient to nullify the acquisition of her lands. Accordingly, the appeal Bench set aside the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge and quashed the a
