R. Rajashekar and Ors. v. Trinity House Building Co-operative Society and Ors.
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. I. Leave granted in all the Special
Leave Petitions.
2. The present appeals arise out of the common impugned judgment
and order dated 06.05.2004 in Writ Appeal Nos. 7543-7557of1996 and
connected matters passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Karnataka, wherein the judgment and order dated 12.07 .1996, passed
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition Nos.
8188-8201 of 1989 and other connected petitions quashing the acquisition
notifications issued under Sections 4( I) and 6( 1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "L.A. Act") was set aside.
3. The relevant facts which are required for us to appreciate the
rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in
brief hereunder:
The lands involved in all these acquisition proceedings are agricultural
lands belonging to poor agriculturalists. On 09.01.1984, Trinity House
Building Co-Operative Society (hereinafter referred to as the
"respondent-Society") was registered with the object of providing sites
for building residential houses for its members. On 12.03.1985, the said
society, repre:'i_ented by its President and Vice President entered into an
agreement with M/S Srinivasa Enterprises, represented by its proprietor,
Mr. S. Rangarajan. The said agreement was entered into between the
parties essentially for getting the lands acquired in favour of the
respondent-Society. The relevant clauses of the agreement will be
extracted in the reasoning portion of the judgment. As per the agreement,
a contract of agency was created in favour of Mr. S. Rangarajan to act
as a middleman between the respondent-Society and the State
Government to get the lands mentioned therein acquired in favour of the
respondent-Society.
4. It is also an undisputed fact that between 06.05.1987 and
12.06.1989, the land owners of the lands mentioned in the agreement
dated 12.03.1985 have also executed power of attorney(s) in favour of
Mr. S. Rangarajan. The state government of Karnataka by its order
769
A dated 23.06.1986, fixed the last date as 30.06.1984 for the registration
of the societies. The respondent-Society finds a place at Serial No. 43 in
the annexure attached to the above government order.
5. By way of order dated 30.04.1987, the state government of
Karnataka constituted a 'Three Men Committee' to verify the claims
B of land for acquisition being made by the various societies, and a State
level Co-ordination Committee also was constituted by the Government
to inquire into the affairs of the society before recommending their claim
for acquisition.
6. The case of the respondent-Society came up for consideration
c beforethe State Level Coordination Committee on 25.09.1987. The State
Level Coordination Committee, without application of mind to the facts
of the case, cleared the case of the respondent-Society for acquisition
oflands in its favour. The relevant portion pertaining to the Society reads
thus:
"14. Trinity HBSC: Avalahalli and Herohalli (correct name
Harohalli) villages, cleared for acquisition of94-l 8 acres,
Avalahalli (73-33 Acres) and Herohalli (22-25 acres)(both
in Yelahanka Bobli) (Action: Revenue Department)"
On l 0.03 .1988, theAdditional Registrar of Co-Operative Societies,
Bangalore passed an order under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co
operative Societies Act, 1959, to inquire into certain allegations made
against 98 House Building Co-Operative Societies of Bangalore City,
including the respondent-Society, and appointed Sri G.V.K. Rao, the then
Controller of Weights and Measures to investigate into the allegations of
irregularities and malpractices against the concerned societies.
7. In the meanwhile, on l 5.04.1988, an agreement was entered
into between the state government of Karnataka and the respondent
Society as required under Section 39 read with Section 41 of Part VII of
the L.A. Act. The relevant portions of the Agreement are extracted
hereunder:
"AND WHEREAS THE SOCIETY has applied to the
Government of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as "THE
GOVERNMENT" that certain land more particularly described
in the schedule hereto annexed and hereinafter referred to as
"THE SAID LAND" should be acquired under the provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(Iof1894) hereinafter referred to
R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS. v. TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
as "the said Act" for the following purpose namely:
Formation of sites and construction of houses to the members of
the trinity House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. atAvalahalli
and Herohalli, Yelahanka hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore
District.
AND WHEREAS the Government having caused an inquiry to
be made in conformity with the provisions of the said Act and
being satisfied as a result of such inquiry that the acquisition of
the said land is needed for the purpose."
8. Subsequently, on 09.05.1988, the report of the G.V.K. Rao
Committee was submitted to the Government for its action. The Report
found irregularities in the manner in which the 'respondent-Society has
granted membership to its members. It was stated in the report that the
Vice President of the respondent-Society accepted these lapses and
even attempted to justify the same.
9. Even after the G.V.K. Rao Committee submitted its report, the
state government of Karnataka proceeded to issue the preliminary
notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, which was published in
the official gazette dated 09.06.1988, proposing to acquire the lands in
question to the extent of92 acres 38 guntas in Avalahalli and Herohalli
villages ofYelahanka Hob Ii, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District
in favour of the respondent-Society.
10. Subsequently, around 33 Objection Petitions were filed before
the Land Acquisition Officer by the landowners, which were all rejected
under the inquiry conducted by him under Section 5-A(2) of the L.A.
Act. The objections filed by some of the landowners were rejected by
land acquisition officer primarily on the ground that the objections are
not valid, and that the concerned lands come in the middle of the layout
and that the lands are being acquired for the formation of house sites by
the respondent society, which is a public purpose as per the definition of
Section 3 (t) (vi) of the L.A. Act. On 18.03.1999, the state government
issued the final notification under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act declaring
that the lands were required for public purpose without proper application
of mind to the report received from the Land Acquisition Officer. The
relevant portion of the notification is extracted hereunder:
"And whereas the Government of Karnataka is satisfied after
considering the report of the special Deputy Commissioner,
771
772
Bangalore District, Bangalore under sub-section (2) of Section
SA and section 6( I) of special Land Acquisition Act (Central Act
1 of 1894) as amended by Karnataka Act No. 17 of 1961 and
Land Acquisition (Amendment Act 1984) that the said lands are
needed to be acquired for the purpose specified above."
11. Aggrieved of the impugned acquisition notifications, the
landowners challenged the validity of the same by way of filing Writ
Petitions before the High Court ofKamataka urging various legal grounds
and prayed for quashing the same. The learned single Judge of the High
Court, after hearing the parties arrived at the conclusion that the facts of
the case were similar to those in the decision of this Court in the case of
H.M.T. House Building Co-Operative Society 1~ Syed K'1ader
1
• On
the facts of the case, the learned single Judge, by way of common
judgment and order dated 12.07.1996 held as under:
"Jn the instant case, the 4th respondent along with the statement
of objections has produced Audit Report as Annexure-1. In the
said report there is reference that the landowners have been paid
the consideration for their lands through MIS Sree Srinivasa
Enterprises. There is also a reference that the society entered
into an agreement dated 13.03.1985 with that of MIS Sree
Srinivasa Enterprises and as per the said agreement the society
has to pay Rs. 1601- per sq. yard to MIS Sree Srinivasa
Enterprises ......
In the statement of objections it is stated that the society through
the agency of MIS Srinivasa Enterprises, represented by its
proprietor has made payments to the landowners. This fact shows
that the facts involved in these petitions are identical with that of
the case involved in the decision of HMT House Building Co
Operative Society (supra). The Supreme Court in the said decision
has held that the power uls 4( 1) and 6( I) of the Act has been
exercised for extraneous consideration at the instance of the
persons who have no role in the decision making process. In the
said view of the matter, I hold that the decision rendered by the
Supreme Court is applicable in all fours and therefore the impugned
notifications are liable to be quashed. In view of the decision of
the Supreme Court referred to above, I hold that the petitioners
are entitled to challenge the impugned acquisition since the land
1 (1995) 2 sec 677
R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS. v. TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
acquisition proceedings is the p1 oduct of colourable exercise of
power at the instance of the third parties."
The learned single Judge has furt'·er held that the la11ds could not
have been acquired by the state gover1lment in favour of a society for
the purpose of providing residential sites to its members with )Ut following
the procedure provided under Part VII of the L.A. Act. The learned
single Judge accordingly, quashed the impugned notifications and also
the acquisition proceedings in exercise of the extracrdinary and
discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia.
12. Aggrieved of the common judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge, the respondent-Society filed Writ Appeals before
the Division Bench of the High Court cpallenging the correctness of the
same urging certain legal grounds. The Qivision Bench of the High Court
held that there was no evidence on record to suggest that the "outside
agency" (M/s Srinivasa Enterprises) 1had influenced thie acquisition
proceedings. On the other hand, it is clear from the material placed on
record that the case of the respondent-Society was conshlered by the
State Level Co-ordination Committee on 25.09.1987, and on the basis of
the clearance granted by the Committee the state governfuent granted
approval to acquire the lands in question. Accordingly, the Division Bench,
by way of common final impugned judgment and order dated 06.05.2004
allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and order passed by the
learned single judge and restored the acquisition proceedings. Hence,
the present appeals.
13. We have heard Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Mr. V. Giri and Mr.
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants and Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalfofthe respondent-Society and Mr. H.N. Nagamohan
Das, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
original landowners in the first two appeals filed by the so-called
purchasers.
14. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalfofthe appellants
vehemently question the correctness of the findings and reasons recorded
by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment and
order. It is contended that the findings and reasons recorded on the
contentious points are not only erroneous in law but also suffer from
error in law. They place strong reliance on the three judge bench decision
of this Court in the case of HMT House Building Cooperative Society
773
774
(supra), which has been followed in the subsequent decisions of this
Court in the cases of H.MT. House Building Cooperative Society v.
M. Venkataswamappa 2, Bangalore City Cooperative Housing
Society Ltd. v. State of Karnataka', B. Anjanappa and Ors. v.
Vya/ikaval House Building Cooperative Society Limited and Ors;'.
The learned senior counsel further sought to distinguish the decision of
this Court in the case of Kanaka Grulia Nirmana Salmkara Sang/ta
v. Narayanamma5, upon which strong reliance has been placed by the
Division Bench of the High Court, which has been followed by this Court
in the cases of Sumitramma v. State ofKarnataka 6 and Muniyappa
v. State of Karnataka7• It is submitted that the reliance placed upon the
said judgments by the Division Bench of the High Court, in the absence
of a scheme framed and approved by the government as required under
Section 3 (f)(vi) of the L.A. Act in favour of the respondent-Society, is
held to be violative of not only the statutory provisions of law, but also
the decisions of this Court referred to supra.
15. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants that the framing of a scheme and its prior
approval by the state government is sine qua non for initiating acquisition
proceedings for the purpose of Section 3(f)(vi) of the L.A. Act. It is
submitted that in the instant case, neither any such scheme has been
framed by the respondent-Society nor has there been any approval
accorded by the state government before initiating land acquisition
proceedings in its favour and therefore, they submit that the entire
proceedings are vitiated in law.
16. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that this
Court in the case of HMT House Building Co-Operative Society
(supra) elaborated upon the scope of the term housing for the purpose
of Section 3(f)(vi) of the L.A. Act. It was held therein as under:
"19. According to us, in Section 3(f)(vi) the expression "housing"
has been used along with educational and health schemes. As
such the housing scheme contemplated by Section 3(f)(vi) shall
2 (1995) 3 sec 128
'(2012) 3 sec 121
• (2012) 10 sec 184
'(2003) 1 sec 228
6 SLP (C) No. I 0270 of 1996. decided on 04.10.1996
7 SLP (C) No. 14681 of 1995 decided on 04. I 0.1996
R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS. v. TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING 775
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
be such housing scheme which shall serve the maximum number
of members of the society. Such housing scheme should prove to
be useful to the public. That is why the Parliament while
introducing a new definition of "public purpose", said that any
scheme submitted by any co-operative society relating to housing,
must receive prior approval of the appropriate Government and
then only the acquisition of the land for such scheme can be held
to be for public purpose. If requirement of Section 3(f)(vi) is not
strictly enforced, every housing co-operative society shall approach
the appropriate Government for acquisition by applying Section
3(f)(vi) instead of pursuing the acquisition under Part VII of the
Act which has become more rigorous and restrictive. In this
background, it has to be held that the prior approval, required by
Section 3(f)(vi), of the appropriate Government is not just a
formality; it is a condition precedent to the exercise of the power
of acquisition by the appropriate Government for a housing scheme
of a co-operative society."
(emphasis laid by this Court)
17. It is further submitted that a perusal of the above extracted
portion of the judgment would show that prior approval of the government
to the Housing Scheme, as contemplated under Section 3(t) (vi) of the
L.A. Act is a condition precedent for the exercise of eminent domain
power by the state government for acquisition of lands for the purpose
of the housing scheme of a Co-operative society. Consequently, the
existence of Housing Scheme framed by the respondent-Society is a
pre-condition for grant ofapproval of the same by the State Government.
Further reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case
of B. A11jmmppa (supra), wherein it was held as under:
"20. We then enquired from Shri Bhat whether his client had
submitted housing scheme for the approval of the State
Government. Shri Bhat responded to the Court's query by relying
upon the recommendations made by the State Leval Coordination
Committee for the acquisition of 179 acres, one and half guntas
land. We have carefully gone through the recommendations of
the State Level Coordination Committee but do not find any trace
of housing scheme which was under the consideration of the
Committee.
B.
776
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 4 S.C.R.
21. Shri Bhat then relied upon the approval accorded by the State
Government for the acquisition of land and the directions issued
to Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore to issue notification under
Section 4( I) of the 1894 Act. He also relied upon the judgment in
Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha v. Narayanamma.
22. In Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Limited v.
State of Karnataka and Ors. decided on 2.2.2012, this Court
considered the question whether the approval granted by the State
Government for the acquisition of land can be considered as an
approval of the housing scheme within the meaning of Section
3(f)(vi) of the Act and answered the same in negative.
23. The judgment in Kanak Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha v.
Narayanamma (supra), ifread in the light of the 1st and 2nd HMT
judgments and the finding recorded by us that Respondent No. 1
had not framed any housing scheme and secured its approval
from the State Government, the direction given to the Deputy
Commissioner to issue notification under Section 4( I) cannot be
treated as the State Government's approval of the housing scheme
framed by Respondent No. I. It is also apposite to note that in
Kanak Gruha's case, this Court was not called upon to consider a
case in which the State Government had come out with a specific
stand that the housing society had not framed any scheme."
18. In the instant case there was no scheme framed by the
respondent-Society for the purpose of providing housing sites to its
members and therefore, no prior approval could have been accorded to
it by the State Government. It is submitted that the cut-off date for
registration of societies and enrolment of members being 30.06.1984,
and the respondent-Society having been registered just before the said
cut-off date, i.e. on 01.02.1984, and there being no Board of Directors
constituted prior to December 1984, and therefore, it could not have
enrolled any members before the cut off date. As such, there was no
scheme framed before the cut off date. In the absence of the same,
there could not have been any government approval of the scheme for
initiating acquisition proceedings, so as to justify the acquisition of lands
under Section 3(f) (vi) of the L.A. Act. It is further submitted by the
learned senior counsel thatthe letter dated 26.11.1987; on which reliance
has been placed by the division bench of the High Court in the impugned
judgment also does not amount to an "approval" of a scheme in law. The
R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS. v. TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING 777
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
letter reads as under: A
"Government of Karnataka
Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, dated 26.11.1987
No.RD 77 AQB 86
From:
The Revenue Commissioner and
Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Bangalore.
To
The Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore.
Sir,
Sub : Acquisition ofland in favour of Trinity House Building
Co-op. Society
****
I am directed to convey the approval of Government for initiating E
the acquisition proceedings for an extent of94-18 acres ofland in
Avalahalli and Harohalli village in favour ofTrinity House Building
Co-Op. Society as recommended by the 3 men Committee and
the State Level Co-Ordination Committee.
The extent ofland to be notified under Section 4( 1) may be-selected F
out of the list of Sy. No. Furnished by the 3 men committee ..... "
19. It is submitted that the above communication does not reflect
the existence of any Housing Scheme and the application of mind by the
state Government for according approval thereto. It mechanically directs
for publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act. G
20. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
contend that the lands in the instant case could not have been acquired
in favour of the respondent-Society in the absence of there being an
housing scheme framed by it and approval of the same. It is thus,
contended that acquisition oflands in the instant case is violative of both H
778
the statutory provisions of law as well as the law laid down by this
Court.
21. On the other hand, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, the learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Society vehemently
opposes the legal contentions advanced on behalf of the learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and sought to justify the
impugned judgment and order by placing strong reliance on the decision
of this Court in the case of Kanaka Grulw (supra). The learned senior
counsel further submits that the state government after accepting the
report of Three Men Committee and State High Level Co-ordination
Committee, by way of its letter dated 26.11.1987, granted approval for
acquisition~orfands in question in favourofthe respondent-Society, the
relevant portion of which has been extracted supra.
'-- ...
22. The learned senior counsel further questions the locus standi of
the appellants in filing the first batch and second batch of appeals. It is
submitted that the agreement dated 12.05.1985 entered into between
the respondent-Society and M/s. Srinivasa Enterprises stipulates the
respondent-Society to pay consideration to Mr. S. Rangarajan for getting
the layout plan approved, costs of the entire lands purchased, execution
of layout work etc. It is submitted that the original landowners in the
instant case executed the general power of attorney in favour of Mr.
S. Rangarajan to get the lands in question acquired. It is further submitted
that the preliminary notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the
L.A. Act dated 09 .06.1988, and the final notification issued under Section
6(1) of the L.A. Act dated 18.03.1989 were challenged by the
respondent-original landowners by way ofWrit Petitions before the High
'Court ofKamataka, wherein the learned single judge, by way of common
judgment and order dated 12.07.1996 quashed the land acquisition
proceedings. It is submitted that within a few days, Mr. S. Rangarajan
sold the lands in question in favour of his daughter, son and son in law,
who are the appellants in first batch of appeals. It is contenqed that the
purported sale transactions in respect oflands covered in the acquisition
notifications is illegal as the same is nothing but fraud played by the said
middleman on the original land owners and the society with a mala fide
intention to deprive the landowners of their constitutional rights, thereby
deceiving not only the original landowners, but also the respondent
Society. It is thus, contended that since the alleged sale oflands in favour
of some of the appellants by Mr. Rangarajan on the basis of the power
R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS. v. TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
of attorney executed by the landowners is void ab initio in law, they
have no locus standi to challenge the legality of the impugned judgment
and acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands involved in these
proceedings before this Court.
23. Mr. H.N. Nagamohan Das, the learned senior counsel appearing
on behalfofthe respondent original landowners-farmers sought to justify
the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that
during the pendency of the Writ Appeals before the High Court, there
came to be a compromise between the farmers and the society. The
compromise is immensely beneficial to farmers as for the acquisition of
every acre, each one of them are entitled for allotment of one site and
the society has agreed to deposit the award amount as determined by
the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned senior counsel submits that if
the acquisition proceedings are not upheld, the farmers will be deprived
of both the award amount as well as a site for every acre of land. In
such a scenario, the only party which stands to gain is the fraudulent
purchasers of the lands. Alternatively, he submits that even if the
acquisition proceedings are quashed on the basis of the non compliance
with Section 3(t)(vi) of the L.A. Act and decisions of this Court referred
to supra and the sale transactions between Mr. S. Rangarajan and some
of the appellants are held void, then also the landowners will get justice
for depriving them and their family members oflivelihood for more than
28 years by preventing them from cultivating the said lands and earning
their livelihood.
24. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the parties. Before we turn our attention to the essential questions of
law that arise for our consideration in the present case, it is important to
advert to a submission made on behalf of the appellants. The learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have also sought to
contend that the respondent-Society had no locus standi to file the Writ
Appeal as it did not have any right over the said lands in the instant case.
It is submitted that a right would vest in the society only once possession
of the land was taken by the state government and award passed in
favour of the landowners, and thus, it did not have the locus standi to
challenge the quashing of the acquisition proceedings. The said submission
has been sought to be rebutted by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, the learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Society, by placing reliance
779
780
on a constitution bench decision of this Court in the case of U.P. Awas
Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (D) by LRS. & Ors.'.
25. We are unable to agree with the contention advanced on behalf
of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Once
the land is sought to be acquired in favour of the respondent-society and
notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the L.A. Act regarding
the same, the respondent-Society acquires the right to challenge the
quashing of the acquisition proceedings by a court oflaw. The contention
advanced by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, the learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent-Society that the appellant-purchasers have
no locus standi to file these special leave petitions cannot be accepted
by us for the reason that they had been imp leaded as respondents in the
Writ Appeals before the High Court.
26. The essential questions of law that would arise for our
consideration in the instant case are:
1. Whether the acquisition of lands in favour of the respondent
society in the impugned acquisition proceedings is covered under
the definition of the term public purpose, as defined under Section
3(f)(vi) of the L.A. Act?
2. Whether the sale transactions in favour of the appellants in the
first and second batch of appeals during the pendency of the
proceedings by the Power of Attorney( s) holder Mr. S. Rangarajan,
on behalf of some of the land owners and sale of lands by some
of the other landowners during the pendency of the Writ Petitions
in favour of the appellant-purchasers in connected second appeals
is legal and valid?
3. Whether the appellant-purchasers are entitled for the reliefs as
prayed by them?
4. What order?
Answer to Point Nos. 1 and 2:
G Point nos. 1 and 2 are interrelated and are answered together as under:
27. Section 3(f)(vi) of the L.A. Act reads as under:
"(t) the expression "public purpose" includes-
(vi) the provision ofland for carrying out any educational, housing,
H • (1995) 2 sec 326
R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS. v. TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
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 (21 of 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 ...... "
28. The respondent-Society and M/s Srinivasa Enterprises by its
proprietor Mr. S. Rangarajan, entered into an agreement dated
13.03.1985. The relevant clauses from the said agreement are extracted
hereunder:
"2. WHEREAS the second party is the contractors,
Representatives, Estate agents and Builders, acting as agents for
providing lands to Co-operative societies, has entered into sale
agreements with owners of the lands in Sy. Nos. 64, 6615, 6617,
66111, 66/13 and Sy. Nos. 50,53, 57/3, 57/4B, 57, 57/7 57/6, 90/1,
60/2, 60/5, 61/2, 61/3, 62, 63/2, 63/3, 64, 64/2, 6511, 67, 67/4, 67/2,
3, 64/1, 67/3A, 68/1, 68/3 ofHerohalli and Avalahally villages of
Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk respectively and
WHEREAS the second party has offered the first party its
services in the matter of securing sale of the above said lands in
the First Party from the owners thereof, free from
encumbrances .... "
5. The Second Party shall secure in the name of the First Party
by way of acquisition to the First Party lands in Sy. Nos. 64, 6615,
66/7, 66/11, 66/13 and Sy. Nos. 50, 53, 57/3, 57/4B, 57, 57/7 57/6,
60/1, 60/3, 60/2, 60/5, 61/2, 61/3, 62, 63/2, 63/3, 64, 64/2, 6511, 67,
67/4, 67/2, 3, 64/1, 67/3A, 68/1, 68/3 measuring about 180 acres at
Harohally and Avalahally villages ofYelahanka Hob Ii, Bangalore
North Taluk respectively in one continguous plot from the
respective owners thereqf ... "
6.The Second Party shall arrange to initiate land Acquisition
Proceedings as per the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act under
Clause 4(1 ), 6(1) Notifications issued in the name of the First
Party."
7. All Acts, Deeds and things connected with the Acquisition of
lands as aforesaid shall be got completed by the Second Party
781
782
with a view to facilitate Acquisition oflands within a period of 18
months or any period to be extended in writing by the First Party.
8. The Second Party shall take necessary steps to get the said
lands Acquired in the name of the First Party through the
Government for the formation of residential sites and handover
the possession of said lands in favour of the First Party within a
period of 18 months from the date of this Agreement."
It becomes clear from a perusal of the aforesaid conditions
incorporated in the agreement that MIS Srinivasa Enterprises, represented
by its proprietor Mr. S. Rangarajan, had agreed to undertake the
responsibility to get the lands mentioned therein acquired in favour of
the respondent-Society from the state government and prepare a Layout
Plan as per the regulations of the Bangalore Development Authority
(hereinafter referred to as "BOA") and Town Planning Authority, and
to get the plan sanctioned by BOA in favour of the respondent-Society.
In addition to the aforesaid responsibility, he had also undertaken to
execute the layout work in accordance with the sanctioned layout plan
under the supervision of the BOA and get the sites released from the
said authority in favour of the respondent-Society. In tenns of the
agreement, Mr. S. Rangarajan was to be paid Rs. 160/- per square yard
by the respondent-Society, the calculation of which was to be done at
Rs. JOO per sq. yard and calculation of cost of land at Rs. 60 per sq.
. yard for the layout charges. The details of the payment plan are outlined
asunder:
" a. Initial advance''at the time of signing this Rs. 50,000/-
agreement
F b. On production of document of Title 25%
relating to the lands forming Subject
matter of this agreement And after
verification by the lawyers Of the society
and at the time of Submission of
Application for Acquisition.
G c. Upon section 4( I) notification is 30%
published in the official gazette
d. Upon section 6 ( 1) notification is 30%
published Ill official gazette
e. Upon approval of,the plan of the 15%
Bangalore Development Authority
H "
R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS. v. TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
The aforementioned amount was enhanced to Rs. 170 per acre
by way of supplementary agreement dated 05.03 .1992.
29. Thus, Mr. Rangarajan was essentially required to act as a
middleman between the respondent-Society and the state government
to ensure that lands are acquired in favour of the respondent-Society for
the purpose of its housing project. Further, between the years 1985 and
1987, the respondent landowners had executed power of attorney(s) of
the lands in favour of Mr. Rangarajan. A sample clause from these Power
of Attorney(s} reads as under:
"WHEREAS the schedule property has been sold by us under
agreement to sell: AND we have also agreed and declared to
relinquish our rights for acquiring the schedule property in favour
of the, Trinity House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd.,
Bangalore AND WHEREAS we have received the full
consideration for the said schedule property as per Agreement
under separate document and receipt.
AND WHEREAS the registration formalities or the acquisition
proceedings is yet to be completed AND WHEREAS the entire
consideration/ compensation/ award has been received by us under
separate documents as said above we hereby give this Power of
Attorney in favour of SRI S. RANGARAJAN, S/o Late K.S.S.
Naidu, as desired by the Trinity House Building Co-Operative
Society Ltd., Bangalore."
A perusal of the agreement executed between the respondent
Society and Mr. Rangarajan, as well as the power of attorney( s) executed
by the landowners in favour of Mr. Rangarajan would clearly show that
the ultimate intent of the parties was to get the lands of the landowners
acquired in favour of the respondent-Society.
30. It was also brought to our attention by the learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the fact that co
operative societies were indulging in malpractices had also come to the
notice of the state government. Accordingly, the state government of
Karnataka, on 23.06.1986 issued an order stating:
"A large number of House Building Co-operative Societies in
Bangalore were purchasing lands directly from the landlords or
under Land Acquisition Act for formation of layout. This has
resulted in uncontrolled, un-planed and haphazard growth of city
of Bangalore. It also created acute problem of order to regulate
783
784
the orderly development of the city, it was felt hat the activities of
such societies should be restricted ..... However it was proposed
to continue acquisition oflands for 70 House Building Co-Operative
Society subject to the clearance from the Three Men Committee
appointed for scrutiny of such proposal. Additional 49 societies
listed in the schedule to this order could not come within the
purview of the said Goverriment Order .... The cut-off date was
fixed as 30-6-1984 for the purpose of Registration of societies
and enrolment of members for the said purpose .....
It has been considered necessary to reconstitute the THREE MEN
COMMITTEE for Verification and for reporting to the revenue
Department regarding the extent oflands to be acquired for each
society and for relaxation of cut-off date for registration of certain
societies and for enrolment of members even beyond 30.06.1984."
The G. V.K. Rao Committee report also mentions the irregularities
in the functioning of the respondent-Society. The relevant portions of
the report are extracted as under:
" ... it appears that the society had entered into an agreement
with Estate Agents for acquisition ofland under Land Acquisition
Act and in the process, the amount being paid to the Estate Agents
towards his service charges itself is more than the costs of the
land under land acquisition. This is a clear case of the Society
frittering away the advances collected from the members and the
site deposit collected from the members are not employed in a
prudent manner.
The society had admitted 18 members without applications for
membership, 3 inembers with incomplete applications, at least 21
members from out-side the jurisdiction of the society (all are from
outside Bangalore) and 8 members without resolution of the
committee ..... At one stage he has also stated that many of their
members are Senior Government Officers and this demolishes
the contention of the Vice-president that because of their
inexperience and ignorance, they have committed the mistakes.
The way society is admitting members from Bombay, Mangalore,
Kolar, Andaman, Secunderabad etc, makes it clear that they have
absolutely no intenti?n of following their bye laws.
R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS. v. TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
When these lapses were brought to the notice of the Vice
President of the society he has explained that, in the initial stages,
since they did not get the prescribed application forms printed,
they had admitted a few members without applications and
thereafter when they had asked the members to fill in the
prescribed applications they have not filled in .... Further he has
stated that since there is a lot of pressure from the members of
their community, they have admitted members from outside the
jurisdiction (mostly outside the state) and subsequently, they made
efforts to amend the Byelaws, the same has not been approved
by the Department, and he has pleaded that because of the
inexperience of the committee, some mistakes have been
committed by the society while admitting the members and they
will take steps to ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated."
The G.V.K. Committee Report was considered by a Division Bench
of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Narayana Reddy v. State
of Karnataka9, wherein it was held as under:
"39. As regards the Agreements entered into between the six
respondent-Societies and their agents, inter alia, for the purpose
of influencing the Government and to procure the preliminary and
the final notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act, which they did procure and which are subject matter of
challenge in these Petitions, the questions which arises for
consideration is, if the agreements are hit by Section 23 of the
Contract Act on the ground that they were opposed to public policy
whether the impugned notifications are liable to be quashed on
the grounds that they were the result of exercise of influence by
the agents on the Government which submission of the petitioners
stand substantiated by the approval given for acquisition is all such
cases which has made the Government itself to realise that it has
totally bungled in the matter as is evident from the G.V.K. Rao
Committee ..... As far as the question that the agreements in
question are opposed to public policy is concerned, it is seen that
the real purpose of the Agreement entered into between the
respondent-Societies and their agents was that the agent should
get the preliminary and the final notifications from the Government
and for that purpose huge amounts were paid or agreed to be
9 ILR 1991 Kar2248
785
786
paid. Any power conferred on the Government under a statute
like the power conferred under Section 4 and 6 of the Act has to
be exercised bona fide and for the purpose for which it is
conferred, therefore an agreement under which a party to the
agreement is required to influence the statutory authority and to
procure a decision favourable to the other party, is certainly
opposed to public policy."
(emphasis laid by this Court)
The principle of law that an agreement under which a party to an
agreement is required to influence a statutory authority and to procure a
decision favourable to the other party, is certainly opposed to public policy,
has been elaborated by this Court in the case of Rattan Chand Hira
Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung 10, wherein it was held as under:
"The contract such as the present one which is found by the City
Civil Court as well as the High Court to have been entered into
with the obvious purpose ofinfluencingthe authorities to procure
a verdict in favour of the late Nawab was obviously a "carrier"
contract. To enforce such a contract although its tendencies to
injure public wealth is manifest is not only to abdicate one's public
duty but to assist in the promotion of a pernicious practice of
procuring decisions by influencing authorities when they should
abide by the law. To strike down such contracts is not to invent a
new head of public policy but to give effect to its true implications.
A democratic society is founded on the rule oflaw and any practice
which seeks to subvert or circumvent the law strikes at its very
root. When the Court discountenances such practice, it only
safeguards the foundation of the society. Even assuming, therefore,
that the Court finds a new head of public policy to strike down
such practice, its activism is not only warranted but desired."
Further, in the first HMTcase (supra), this Court has held as under:
"We are in agreement with the finding of the High Court that the
statutory notifications issued under Sections 4( I) and 6( I) of
the Act have been issued due to the role played by Mis S.R.
Constructions, respondent No. 11. On the materials on record,
High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the
proceedings for acquisition of the lands had not been initiated
because the State Government was satisfied about the existence
"'(1991) 3 sec 67
R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS. v. TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
ofthepublic purpose but atthe instance ofagent who had collected
more than a crore of rupees for getting the lands acquired by the
State Government."
31. In the instant case, the learned single Judge of the High Court
rightly placed strong reliance upon the judgment in the first H.M. T. House
Building Co-operative Society case (supra) and held that the said
decision is applicable on all fours to the facts of the case on hand, holding
that neither was a scheme framed by the respondent-Society nor prior
approval granted by the state government. The said finding was
erroneously reversed by the Division Bench of the High Court, which
placed reliance upon the letter dated 26.11.1987 of the State Government
addressed to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District and
held that facts of the instant case were similar to those of the decision of
this Court in the case of Kanaka Grulia (supra), wherein it was held as
under:
"For emphasizing that prior approval of the appropriate
Government in the present case was not just an empty formality,
we would refer to Annexure R-1, which is as under: "Dated:
14.11.85 The Revenue Commissioner and Secretary to
Government, Bangalore.
The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore.
Sir,
Sub: Acquisition of Land in Sy. Nos.19/2, 26, 29 ofKadirenahalli
village imd Sy. No.29/3 ofKonanakunt village Bangalore South
Taluk in favour of Kanaka Gruhaniramana Sahakara Sangha,
Bangalore.
I am directed to convey the approval of Government to initiate
acquisition proceedings by issuing 4( I) notification in respect
of lands measuring 8 acres 03 guntas as recommended by the
Official Committee in Sy. Nos.19/2, 26, 29 of Kadirenehalli
village and Sy. No.29/3 of Kenanakunte village, Bangalore
South Taluk in favour of Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara
Sangha Bangalore.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(Mandi Hussain)
Under Secretary to Government Revenue Department.
Copy to the President, Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakan1
No.435 Middle School Road, V.V. Puram, Bangalore-4."
787
8
788
Considering the fact that State Government directed the Assistant
Registrar of Co-operative Societies of Bangalore to verify the
requirement of the members of the Society and also the fact that
the matter was placed before the Committee of three Members
for scrutiny and thereafter the State Government has conveyed
its approval for initiating the proceedings for acquisition of the
land in question by letter dated 14.11.1985, it cannot be said that
there is lapse in observing the procedure prescribed under Section
3(t)(vi). Prior approval is granted after due verification and
scrutiny."
32. The Division Bench of the High Court in the instant case,
accordingly, held that the approval granted in the case on hand sufficiently
satisfied the requirements of Section 3(t)(vi) of the L.A. Act. The Division
Bench of the High Court, however, crucially fails to appreciate the fact
that the said letter issued by the state Government to the Deputy
Commissioner does not speak of either framing of a Housing Scheme as
contemplated under Section 3(t)(vi) of the L.A. Act or approval of the
same as has been interpreted by the three judge bench decision of this
Court in the case of H.M. T. House Buildi11g Co-operative Society
(supra), which has been reiterated by this Court in subsequent judgments
on the similar set of facts including that of Ba11galore City Coop.
Housing Society Ltd.(supra), the relevant paragraphs of which are
extracted hereunder:
20. Now the question which is to be answered is as to whether in
view of the definition of "public purpose" introduced by the
aforesaid amending Act 68of1984 in Section 3(t)(vi), is it open
to the appropriate Government to acquire land for cooperative
society for housing scheme without making proper enquiry about
the members of the Society and without putting such housing co
operative society to term in respect of nature of construction, the
area to be alloted to the members and restrictions on transfer
thereof?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
22. In the present case, a hybrid procedure appears to have been
followed. Initially, the appellant society through Mis. S.R.
Constructions purported to acquire the lands by negotiation and
sale by the land holders. Then from terms of the agreement dated
17 .3 .1988, it appears that the procedure prescribed in Part - VII
was to be followed and the lands were to be acquired at the cost
R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS. v. TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
of the appellant society treating itto be a "company". The allegation
made on behalf of the appellant society that the housing scheme
had been approved by the appropriate Government on 7. I I .1984
shall not be deemed to be a prior approval within the meaning of
Section 3(f)(vi) but an order giving previous consent as required
by Section 39 of Part VII of the Act. In the agreement dated
17.3.1988 it has been specifically stated "And whereas the
Government having caused inquiry to be made in conformity .with
the provisions of the said Act and being satisfied as a result of
such inquiry that the acquisition of the said land is needed forthe
purpose referred to above has consented to the provisions of the
said Act being in force in order to acquire the said land for the
benefit of the society members to enter in the agreement
hereinafter contained with the Government". [emphasis supplied]
But, ultimately, the lands have been acquired on behalf of the
appropriate Government treating the requirement of the appellant
society as for a public purpose within the meaning of Section
3(f)(vi), It is surprising as to how respondent M/s S.R.
Constructions entered into agreement with the appella11t society
assuring it that the lands, details of which were given in the
agreement itself, shall be acquired by the State Government by
following the procedure of Sections 4(1) and 6( I) and for this,
more than one crore ofrupees was paid to Mis. S.R. Constructions
(respondent No. 11 )"
Further, in the case of Vy"/ik"v"I House Buildi11g Coop. Society
v. V. Clumdr"ppa", this Court held as under:
"I 09. The Court in Kanaka Gruba case noted that the Assistant
Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Three-Man Committee and
the State Level Committee had recommended the acquisition of
land on behalf of the appellant and the Government had directed
the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore to initiate acquisition
proceedings by issuing Section 4( I) notification and proceeded to
observe:
'17. Considering the fact that the State Government directed
the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies of Bangalore
to verify the requirement of the members of the Society and
also the fact that the matter was placed before the Committee
of three members for scrutiny and thereafter the State
------
11 (2007) 9 sec 304
789
790
Government has conveyed its approval for initiating the
proceedings for acquisition of the land in question by Letter
dated 14-11-1985, it cannot be said that there is lapse in
observing the procedure prescribed under Section J(t)(vi). Prior
approval is granted after due verification and scrutiny.'
110. In our view, none of the orders and judgments referred to
hereinabove can be relied upon for holding that even though the
appellant had not framed any housing scheme, the acquisition in
question should be deemed to have been made for a public purpose
as defined in Section J(t)(vi) simply because in the representation
made by him to the Revenue Minister of the State, the Executive
Director of the appellant had indicated that the land will be used
for providing sites to poor and people belonging to Backward Class
and on receipt of the recommendations of SLCC the State
Government had directed the Special Deputy Commissioner to
issue notification under Section 4( 1) of the 1894 Act and that too
by ignoring the ratio of the judgments of the three-Judge Benches
in 1st H.M.T. and 2nd H.M.T. cases and the judgment of the
two-Judge Bench in Vyalikaval House Building Coop. Society
case.
111. In majority of the cases decided by the High Court to which
reference has been made hereinabove, the petitioners were non
suited on the ground of delay and !aches or participation in the
award proceedings. In Muniyappa case, the judgment in I st
H.M.T. case was distinguished on the premise that a scheme had
been framed and the same had been approved by the State
Government and further that the petitioner had failed to show that
the approval was vitiated due to intervention of the extraneous
consideration. In Sumitramma case this Court noted that in 1st
H.M.T. case, no separate order was made by the Government
for grant of approval whereas in Sumitramma case an order has
been passed on 14-10-1985 conveying the Government's approval
for the issuance of Notification dated 21-1-1986 under Section
4( I) of the 1894 Act. In Kanaka Gruha case also, this Court treated
the direction contained in letter dated 14-11-1985 of the Revenue
Commissioner and Secretary to the Government to the Special
Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore to initiate the acquisition
proceedings by issuing notification under Section 4(1) as an
approval within the meaning of Section J(t)(vi).
R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS. v. TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
112. In none of the three cases, this Court was called upon to
consider whether the decision taken by the Government to sanction
the acquisition ofland in the backdrop of an agreement executed
by the society with a third partv, as had happened in 1st H.M.T.
and 2nd H.M.T. cases and the present case whereby the Estate
Agent agreed to ensure the acquisition of land within a specified
time-frame subject to payment of huge amount of money and the
fact that the agreement entered into between the society and the
Government was in the nature of an agreement contemplated by
Part VII of the Act."
113. While in I st H.M.T. case the amount paid to M/s S.R.
Constructions was rupees one crore, in the present case, the
appellant had agreed to pay more than rupees five crores for
facilitating issue ofnotifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) and
sanction of the layouts and plans by BOA within a period of less
than one year. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the
appellant's case is squarely covered by the ratio of I st H.M.T.
and 2nd H.M.T. cases and the High Court did not commit any
error by relying upon the judgment in I st H.M.T. case for declaring
that the acquisition was not for a public purpose."
(emphasis laid by this Court)
33. The stand of the respondent-Society is that the acquisition of
lands by the State Government is under Section 3 (t) (vi) of the L.A. Act
and that a scheme has been submitted and the same has been approved.
But from a perusal of the original acquisition file of the state government,
it is clear that there is no such scheme and no prior approval of the same
by the State Government as required under Section 3 (t)(vi) of the L.A.
Act.
34. Thus, in the light of the judgments of this Court referred to
supra, and in the absence of framing of scheme by the respondent
Society and approval of the same by the State Government as required
under Section 3 (t)(vi) of the L.A. Act, the Division Bench, holding that
the letter dated 26. l I .1987 referred to supra amounts to approval of the
scheme, is wholly erroneous in law for the reason that neither the Three
Men Committee, nor the State Level Co-ordination Committee even
adverted to the said letter in their proceedings. Further, no details are
forthcoming from the original file regarding the details of the scheme,
and the application of mind by the state government to approve the same.
In the light of the decisions of this Court, as well as the wording of
791
792
Section 3(t)(vi) of the L.A. Act, we are constrained to hold that the
acquisition proceedings in the instant case cannot be said to be one for
'public purpose' as defined under Section 3 (t) (vi) of the L.A. Act,
especially in the light of the fact that not only was there no scheme
formulated by the respondent-Society and approved by the State
Government for the said purpose before initiating the acquisition
proceedings, but that the evidence on record clearly indicates that the
respondent-Society paid consideration to Mr. S. Rangarajan to act as
the agent between it and the state government, to ensure that the lands
of the original land owners are acquired in its favour. Upholding such an
acquisition would be akin to approving to such type of agreements which
are opposed to public policy and the same cannot be allowed by this
Court under any circumstances, as the concept of hiring middlemen to
get lands of the poor agricultural workers acquired by the state
government in favour of a Cooperative Society is abhorrent and cannot
be granted the sanction of law.
3 5. Even as far as the terms of the so-called agreement are
concerned, the parties failed to meet those as well. The relevant clause
of the agreement is extracted as under:
"7. All Acts, Deeds and things connected with the Acquisition of
lands as aforesaid shall be got completed by the Second Party
with a view to facilitate Acquisition of lands within a period of 18
months or any period to be extended in writing by the First Party.
8. The Second Party shall take necessary steps to get the said
lands Acquired in the name of the First Party through the
Government for the formation of residential sites and handover
the possession of said lands in favour of the First Party within a
F period of 18 months from the date of this Agreement."
It is clear that the parties to the said agreement were not even able
to honour the terms of the same. Thus, the acquisition of the lands cannot
be allowed to sustain for that reason as well.
36. Further, the state government did not even take into
consideration the finding of the G. V.K. Rao Committee report, which
found that the respondent-Society was issuing membership to persons
fraudulently, including to those persons who were not even residing within
the area of operation of the jurisdiction of the society. Further, the
acquisition of lands of two different villages by issuing the impugned
notifications by the State Government in exercise of its eminent domain
R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS. v. TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
power at the instance of a middleman amounts to a mala fide exercise
of power by the state government. This is further made clear from the
stand of the state government reflected throughout the proceedings, not
just before this Court, but also before the High Court, where it remained
a silent spectator to the proceedings, and neither actively defended the
acquisition oflands nor opposed it. Even in the affidavit dated 03.08.2016
submitted before this Court in these proceedings, the stand of the state
government is merely that it will proceed to make an award under Section
24( I )(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as the "New L.A. Act, 2013"), ifthe validity of the acquisition
of the lands in question is upheld. This stand of the state government
clearly goes to show the seriousness in which it has exercised its eminent
domain power in such important case of acquisition of lands of poor
agricultural workers in blatant violation of the provisions of the L.A. Act
and law laid down by this Court.
37. Thus, the impugned notifications issued under Sections 4(1)
and Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act are bad in law as the same suffer from
not only legal mala tides but also legal malice, which amounts to colourable
exercise of power by the state government and therefore, the same are
liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.
3 8. At this stage, it is also important to reflect on another argument
advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, that since till date no award has been passed in favour of the
landowners by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, the land
acquisition proceedings are lapsed on that count also by virtue of Section
11 A of the L.A. Act.
39. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalfofthe appellants
submit that since no award has been passed within two years from the
date of the acquisition of the lands, which got over in April 1991, thus, by
virtue of Section 11 A of the L.A. Act, the acquisition proceedings are
lapsed. A question which was sought to be examined was whether Section
24(l)(a) of the New L.A. Act, 2013, which came into force from
01.01.2014 would save the proceedings in the instant case, even ifthe
award has not been passed within two years from the date of the
acquisition of the lands. Before we deal with the argument advanced by
the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, it would
be useful to advert to the relevant statutory provisions.
793
A Section 11 A of the L.A. Act reads as under:
"11 A. Period shall be which an award within made. -The Collector
shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years
from the date of the publication of the declaration and ifno award
is made within that period, the entire proceeding for the acquisition
of the land shall lapse .... "
The relevant provisions of the New L.A. Act, 2013 read as under:
"24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall
be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-( I)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of
land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894,-
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition
Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the
determination of compensation shall apply; or
D "
"114. Repeal and saving.-( I) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
( 1 of 1894) is hereby repealed.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act the repeal under sub
section ( 1) shall not be held to
prejudice or affect the general application of section 6 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897 ( 10 of 1897) with regard to the effect
of repeals.
"
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act reads as under:
"6. Effect of repeal- Where this Act, or any or Regulation made
after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment
hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different
intention appears, the repeal shall not-
( a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which
the repeal takes effect;
(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or
anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or
( c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued
or incurred under any enactment so repealed;
,,
R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS. v. TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
It was contended that when the New L.A. Act, 2013 came into
force, the acquisition proceedings had already lapsed by virtue of Section
11 A of the L.A. Act. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act clearly lays
down that the repeal of the L.A. Act does not revive anything not in
force or existing at the time the repeal takes effect. It is submitted that
the repeal took effect on 01.01.2014 and as on that date, the acquisition
proceedings were no longer alive. Thus, Section 24(l)(a) of the New
L.A. Act,2013 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not
revive the acquisition proceedings which were dead long before coming
into force of the New L.A. Act, 2013.
40. On the other hand, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, the learned senior
.counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Society very strongly
opposed the said contention placing reliance upon Section 24(1 )(a) of
the New L.A. Act, 2013 and Section I IA of the L.A. Act that an Award
could not be passed because of the status' quo order passed by way of
an interim order that had been passed during the pendency of the writ
petitions, writ appeals and as well as the proceedings before this Court.
Therefore, the acquisition proceedings cannot be said to have lapsed on
that ground alone.
41. In view of the fact that for the reasons stated supra, we have
already come to the conclusion that the acquisition proceedings in respect
of the acquired lands are liable to be quashed and there is no need for us
to render an opinion on this question of law in these cases, as interesting
as it is.
Answer to Point nos. 3 and 4:
42. Having arrived at the conclusion on the points framed in these
appeals for the reasons stated supra, the acquisition proceedings in the
instant case are liable to be quashed, we now turn our attention to answer
the question of the reliefrequired to be granted by this Court in favour of
the appellants in the appeals arising out ofSLP (C) Nos. 13656-13684 of
2004 and the appeals arising out ofSLP(C) Nos. 18090-18118 of2004.
The appellants in the connected third appeals arising out ofSLP (C) No.
23336-23339 of2004 are the original owners oflands who had approached
the High Court after a long lapse of time. Therefore, Mr. Shanti Bhushan
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Society
submits the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 23336-23339 of2004
are liable to be dismissed on account of delay and laches as they have
approached the High Court after long lapse of time without proper and
sufficient explanation in approaching belatedly to the High Court by filing
795
796
writ petitions. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, the learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the said appellants-landowners has seriously opposed the
above contention by contending that the said question has already been
answered by this Court in H.M.T. House Building Coop. Society
(supra) wherein it was held that once the proceedings are void ab initio
·in law for non-compliance with mandatory statutory requirement of prior
approval of the Scheme, the original owners cannot be shut out from the
Court in challenging the acquisition proceedings and therefore, they are
entitled to challenge the same at any point of time even in the collateral
proceedings. We have accepted the above contention as the same is
well founded and tenable in law.
43. On the issue of whether the so called purchasers of the lands
during the pendency of Writ petitions were entitled to relief as prayed
for by them in the instant cases, our answer must be in the negative for
the following reasons:
The respondent-original landowners in the first appeal had executed
power of attorney(s) in favour of Mr. S. Rangarajan to facilitate him to
get the lands acquired in favour of the respondent-Society, the relevant
terms of which have been extracted supra to show that they have not
executed the power of attorney in his favour to sell their lands other than
the respondent-Society. On the basis of the same the acquisition
proceedings were initiated and the notifications under Section 4(1) and
6(1) of the L.A. Act were issued. Some of the respondent-original
landowners objected to the same by submitting their objections to the
proposed acquisition of their lands before the Land Acquisition Officer
after Section 4( 1) notification was published. No doubt their objections
have been mechanically overruled by the Land Acquisition Officer and
the State Government without application of mind to the facts of the
case and the provisions of the L.A. Act. The fact that the report submitted
by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A(2) of the L.A.
Act has not been even considered by the State Government properly
and objectively is evident from the original file produced in these cases.
After the Writ Petitions were allowed by the learned single Judge of the
High Court, the middleman, Mr. S. Rangarajan played fraud on the land
owners and the society by making use of said Power of Attorney(s) and
executed the sale deeds in favour of his son, daughter and son-in-law
who are the appellants in the appeals arising out ofSLP (C) Nos. 13656-
13684 of2004, within a span of a few days from the date of passing the
judgment by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions. The said action
R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS. v. TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
of Mr. S. Rangarajan tantamounts to fraud played by him upon the
respondent-original landowners and therefore, the said transaction of
executing the sale deeds in favour of his son, daughter and son in law is
void ab initio in law.
44. As far as the sale in favour of the appellants in the appeals
arising out ofSLP (c) Nos. 18090-18118 of2004 is concerned during the
pendency of the writ petitions, the same is also void ab initio in law as
the same happened during the pendency of the Writ Petition before the
learned single Judge of the High Court. A Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. v. Sant Singlt & Ors.10
held that the sale transactions of a similar nature is void ab initio in law.
Thus, the transactions of the alleged sales made during the pendency of
the proceedings are wholly illegal and void ab initio in law and therefore
the same cannot be allowed to sustain in law. The said sale transactions
are also contrary to law which is in operation in respect of agricultural
lands.
45. The ImpleadmentApplication Nos. 74-102 of2010 filed in the
appeals arising out of the SLP (C) Nos. 13656-13684 of2004 are also
liable to be rejected, as the applicant therein claims to be the Power of
Attorney(s) holder of some of the lands in question and agreementirnf
sale. Since he neither approached the High Court, nor this Court by way
of filing SLPs and neither the agreements of safo nor the power of
attorney(s) confer any right upon him at this time, as the same is barred
by the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, 1952, provisions of the
Specific Relief Act as well as the Limitation Act, the applicant has no
legal right to come on record to challenge the impugned judgment and
therefore the Impleadment Applications are rejected, as the same are
wholly unsustainable in law.
46. For the reasons stated supra, we pass the following orders:
(a) The appeals filed by the so-called purchasers and some of the
landowners seeking to set aside the common impugned judgment
and order dated 06.05.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court ofKarnataka in Writ Appeal Nos. 7543-7557 ofl 996
and other connected appeals are allowed to the extent as indicated
below and the impugned judgment and order is hereby set aside.
The common judgment and order dated 12. 07 .1996 passed by the
learned single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No, 8188-
" C. A. No. 5072 of2016, decided on 13.05.2016
797
798
8201 of 1989 and other connected writ petitions in quashing the
acquisition notifications and proceedings are restored.
(b) We also hold that the transfer of the acquired lands by way of
the alleged sale deeds executed by Mr. S. Rangarajan in favour
of the appellants in the appeals arising out ofSLP (C) Nos. 13656-
13684 of2004, as well as the transfer oflands by way of alleged
sale deeds in favour of some of the appellant-purchasers in the
appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18090-18118 of 2004 are
illegal and void ab initio in law.
(c) Since the learned single Judge of the High Court quashed the
acquisition notifications and proceedings at the. instance of the
original landowners, which common judgment and order has been
restored by this Court by setting aside the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the
Writ Appeals filed by the respondent-Society, we grant the relief
as has been granted by the learned single Judge in favour of the
said original landowners, who are the respondents in the first two
appeals before us and also allow the appeals filed by some of the
landowners in the civil appeals arising out ofSLP (C) No. 23336-
23339 of2004.
(d) Since we have set aside the common impugned judgment and
order of the Division Bench of the High Court ofKarnataka, we
consequently restore the common judgment and order of the
learned single Judge passed in the Writ Petitions, wherein the'
acquisition notifications and proceedings in respect of the lands of
some of original landowners have been quashed at their instance.
The same shall now be enjoyed by them. So also the appellants in
the appeals arising out ofSLP{C) Nos. 23336-23339 of2004 are
entitled for. the same relief as we quashed the acquisition
notifications and proceedings. For this purpose, we direct the
Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore, Urban District and also the
Commissioner of Police/DGP to extend all such protection and
·· assistance to the landowners to ensure that this Judgment and
order is implemented properly.
47. All pending applications are disposed of.
Ankit Gyan Appeals disposed of.