H.M.T.
House Building Co-Op. Society Vs. Syed Khader & Ors [1995] INSC 142 (21 February 1995)
Singh
N.P. (J) Singh N.P. (J) Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) Bharucha S.P. (J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 2244 1995 SCC (2) 677 JT 1995 (2) 543 1995 SCALE (2)58
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
1.
Leave granted.
2 The
appellant is a House Building Co-operative Society of the employees of H.M.T.
Limited, a Government Company (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society'). The
Society was registered for the purpose of acquiring land by purchase, mortgage,
lease, exchange, gift or otherwise, and to develop the same by construction of
roads, drains, parks, play grounds, schools, hospitals, waterworks, post-office
and other amenities, required for a residential housing colony. The Society has
been registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.
3. The
Society submitted its housing scheme to the State Government on 19.9.1984, for
the purpose of acquisition 546 of lands situated at Thindlu and Chikkabettahalli,
for 1001 members of the, Society. It is the case of the appellant that the
Government being fully satisfied with the scheme submitted by the appellant
approved the same by an order dated 7.11.1984 and accorded approval for
initiation of acquisition proceeding for the lands. On 17.3.1988 the Society
entered into an agreement with the State Government agreeing to the conditions
for acquisition, as required by Sections 39 and 40 of Part - VII of the Land
Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). But on 12.7.1988 a
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued proposing to acquire
lands for the Society to the extent of 133.33 acres in the aforesaid two
villages, saying it was needed for public purpose.
4. The
writ petitioners-respondents questioned the validity of the aforesaid
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on several grounds including that
the acquisition itself was not for public purpose. During the pendency of the
writ application on II. 8.1989 the State Government issued declaration under
Section 6(1) of the Act in respect of 99.01 acres of land in the aforesaid two
villages for the appellant's Society, On 19.3.1991 awards were made in respect
of the aforesaid lands. However, on 18.6.1991 the High Court allowed the writ
application and quashed all steps taken in connection with acquisition thereof
According to the High Court, the acquisition was not for allotment to the bonafide
members of the Society and as the Society had indulged in commercial venture
for sales of sites, the acquisition of the lands under the provision of the Act
was a colourable exercise of the power, The High Court was also of the opinion
that procedure adopted by the State Gov- ernment for acquisition of lands for
the Society was likely to defeat the schemes under Bangalore, Development
Authority Act.
5.From
the facts of the present case,, it appears that on 19.9.1984 the appellant
society submitted the housing scheme to the State Government. On 1.2.1985 the
appellant society entered into an agreement with M/s S.R. Constructions,
respondent No. 11 in which the appellant society was described as First party
and M/s S.R. Constructions as Second party. The relevant parts whereof are as
follows:-
"2.
WHEREAS THE FIRST PARTY is a registered House Building Co-operative Society
under the Karnataka Co-op. Societies Act, its main object being to procure
lands around Bangalore and forming layouts and sites to cater to the needs of
its members by alloting sites for purposes of construction of dwelling houses
on the sites and the Second Party is an Architects, Engineers, Builders &
Layout Contractors.
3.AND
WHEREAS THE SECOND PARTY approached the First Party and offered to assist the
First Party to secure lands in Thindlu and Chikkabettahally villages to the
extent of 80 Acres approximately as specified in the Annexures to this
Agreement and to get the lands acquired in favour of the First Party and
further offered to take up the work of layout and formation of sites so formed
through the B.D.A., and/or from any other competent authority.
4 AND
WHEREAS at on a representation from the FIRST PARTY the SECOND PARTY with his
efforts has secured directions from Revenue Secretary, Government of Karnataka
addressed to 547 the Special D. C, Bangalore to issue Notification under Sec.
4(1) of Land Acquisition Act in favour of the First Party Society vide No.
RD.257 AQB 84 dated 7.11.1984.
The
Second Party shall secure to the First Party lands at Thindlu and Chikkabettahally
to an extent of 80 acres as specified in the annexures to this agreement to
begin with and such further extent as the First Party may require and shall
arrange for agreements to be executed between the owners of such lands and the
First Party within a period of 2-3 months from this day to facilitate the
acquisition of lands in favour of the First Party. The Second Party hereby
agrees strictly to conform and act according to the terms of this agreement.
The
Second Party who has already entered into sale agreement with the owners of
land (the details of the land fully described in the schedule to this
agreement) has agreed to negotiate and ensure the acquisition of the land in favour
of First Party.
The
First Party after inspection of the lands and discussions with the Second Party
has agreed to have the lands from -the owners acquired for the First Party
subject to the other Services to be rendered by the Second Party as agreed to
hereinafter.
NOW
THIS AGREEMENT spells out the terms and conditions, rights. Powers, obligations
and liabilities of the parties to this agreement.
1. It
is agreed that the Second Party shall carry out the following works for the
First Party in respect of the lands to be acquired for the First Party.
2. It
is agreed that in respect of the lands to be acquired for the First Party the
Second Party shall undertake to do the following:
(a) To
get Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued for acquisition of
the required extent of land mentioned in the annexure for the First Party in Thindlu
and Chikkabettahally Villages, in one continuous plot and enter into necessary
agreements with the owners of the land confirming that the lands are free from
encumbrance and that there are no claim on the lands and that they have no
objection for the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land;
(b) To
get the Notification as required under Section 4(i) to be issued within 3
months from the date of agreement with land owners.
(c) To
get the Enquiry as required under Section 5(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by
proper authorities completed within 34 months from the date of agreement with
land owners;
(d) To
get the Notification as required u/s 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act within 10
months from the date of the Agreement;
(e) To
secure possession of the land from the land owners to the FirstParty after all
the formalities of acquisition are completed and orders passed acquiring the
lands for the First Party within 12 months from the date of the agreement;
(f) To
get the layout plan approved and sanctioned and also permission to execute the
civil portion of the layout work comprising of formation of roads, drains
culverts etc., by the B.D.A. within 2 months from the date of securing
possession of lands;
548
(g) Executing the civil portion of the lay- out work comprising of formation of
roads, drain, culverts etc,, as specified by the B.D.A. according to the
sanctioned plan specifications and under supervision of the B.D.A. 8 months of
the sanction of layout plan and receipt of work order from the B.D.A. for the
layout work;
(h)
Securing the permission from B.D.A.to execute the layout work under their
supervision and the layout comprising of laying of water supplying sewerage
lines and chip carpeting which is agreed to be completed within 6 months after
the completion of civil portion layout;
(i)Executing
and doing all other acts, and things necessary for forming full fledged layout
of residential building sites on the lands required complete in all respects
fit and ready for construction of houses on the completion of civil portion of
lay out works;
(j)To
get all the sites released from the B.D.A or any other competent authority
within two months of completion of layout works.
3. The
second party has agrred and undertaken to take up the above mentioned works and
has agreed to carry out the works within 245 months time from the date of this
agreement subject to any delay caused at the B.D.A and other authorities in
procuring the land, sanctioning or issuing layout plan and work order.
4.
First first party agrees to pay to the second party amount calculated at Rs.
112/- per Sq. Yard based an the actual sital area (inclusive of the cost of the
land acquired and the compensation payable thereto either under the award or
any enhanced compensation under any proceedings, security fee and amounts
payable to the B.D.A. towards supervi- sion charges, chip carpeting, tree
planting, maintenance etc., amount and sewerage mains within the layout amount
payable to K.E.B. for electricity and the cost of layout to be deposited with
B.D.A.) excluding the cost of the area to be left for roads, drains and the
civic amenities according to the layout plan approved by B.D.A.
.....................
[Emphasis supplied]
6. In
the schedule of the said agreement, the details of the lands, which have been
acquired and which am subject matter of controversy. have been given.
7. It
further appears that agreements were also executed in favour of the appellant
society by the land holders some of whom are writ petitioners - respondents,
agreeing to sell their lands to the appellant society or to their nominee. In
such agreements, the land holders said that the terms and conditions of the
entered into between M/s S.R. Construtions and the appellant society won
totally agreeable to them including the terms of payment and time limit They also
to receive the sale consideration through M/s S.R.
Constructions
(respondent No. 11) and admitted to have received advance an behalf of the
appellant society from M/S S.R. Constructions. They further agreed that if the
Government intended to acquire the land for the housing pur- pose of the
appellant society, they will agree to give consent to notifications under
Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act.
8.Before
the High Court, on behalf of the writ petitioners, it was pointed that
responded No.11, M/S S.R. Construc- 549 tions had played dubious role of a
middle man. The said respondent entered into agreement with the land holders
for sale of their lands by negotiation, At the same time it entered into an
agreement with the appellant society to get notifications under Sections 4(1)
and 6(1) issued by the ap- propriate Government acquiring those lands through
the procedure prescribed under the Act. In this process, the said respondent
No. II has influenced the exercise of statutory power by the appropriate Government,
for the huge amount paid by the appellant society to the said respondent as
consideration for the same. In this background, according to the writ
petitioners, it cannot be held that the appropriate Government has exercised
its own independent discretion, that the lands in question were needed for any
public purpose. In other words, the exercise of the statu- tory power under
Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act is not based on objective considerations of
the materials, on the basis of which the appropriate Government could have
formed an opinion that the lands of the writ petitioners were required for
public purpose and because of that it was necessary to acquire the same.
9. The
High Court came to the conclusion, on this question.
"The
agents of each of these societies had been paid heavy amounts in consideration
of which they were required, to influence the Government and to get the
preliminary and the final notifications acquiring large extent of lands from
the Government. The decision of the Government to acquire the lands was brought
about by the influence of such agents and"carriers" between the
Government and the society concerned and therefore such a decision is liable to
be set aside on the ground that it is a case of colourable ex- ercise of power
and suffers from legal mala hides, in that, though the acquisition is stated to
be for public purpose, in reality, the acquisition is substantially not for the
purpose of bona fide housing schemes.
10.From
the judgment of the High Court, it further appears that not only the
acquisition of lands in favour of seven Housing Co-operative Societies, who
were respondents to the different Writ Petitions, but also the acquisition of
lands in favour of more than one hundred housing societies, which had sprung up
within the Bangalore Metropolitan Planning Area the matter of public debate and
criticism. As a result of which a statutory enquiry under Section 64 of the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act was directed by the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies. me enquiry was held by Shri G.V.K.Rao, the Controller
of Weights and Measures, who submitted his Report in respect of different
housing societies including the appellant Society. 'The said Report was
produced before the High Court. in the Report, it has been pointed out that
most predominant irregularities committed by many of the Societies was in
respect of admission on members. In many cases the committees of management did
not consider the applications for membership and there was no proper
resolutions specifying the persons who were admitted as members of the society.
There was no record on which date the said members were admitted by the
different Housing Co-operative Societies. It was also said in the Report that
the societies admitted persons. who were not eligible to become members. In
respect of the appellant society, it was said in the Report, which has been
referred to by the High Court in its judgment that 550 membership was open to
any person above 18 years of age and it left scope for admitting non-employees
of HMT as members.
From
the scrutiny of the applications, it transpired that many 'who had been
admitted as members, were neither employ- ees of the HMT nor residents within
the jurisdiction of the Society. It was also pointed out that the appellant had
entered into an agreement with the Estate Agent S.R. Constructions and had paid
a total amount of Rs.92,52,938/- to the said agent and Rs.35 lakhs to special
Land Acquisi- tion Officer. The conclusion in respect of the appellant society
in the Report is as follows:- "The Society has admitted large number of
persons who are neither employees of HMT nor residents of the jurisdiction of
the Society. All of them are to be removed from the rolls of the Society. The
Society grants the membership without collecting the sufficient share amount
and in many cases only the single share was taken by the members, whereas it
was necessary for members to take atleast five shares. The committee solely
responsible for these irregularities. Secondly, the Society made huge advances
to the agents without commensurate amount of guarantee or security and without
any work being done by the agents.
There
is atleast Rs.1.6 crores which has been advanced to the agents without any work.The
committee in general and the Hon. Secretary of the Society in particular is
responsible for these irregularities".
Taking
into consideration all the facts and the circumstances of the case including
the report of Mr.G.V.K.Rao, the High Court observed.
"Before
concluding, it is necessary to observe that as pointed out in the report of
G.V.K. Rao, it is on account of unlimited territorial jurisdiction and vague
provisions as to who could become members and associate members and also as to
what are the rights of associate members, it has been possible for many of the
societies to manipulate membership in such a way as to enroll all those who are
desirous of purchasing sites as also those who do not possess the territorial
or other qualification as members".
It was
said that it was necessary that the Government should frame rules for according
previous approval for acquisition of lands for the housing co-operative
societies inter alia prescribing the essential requirements of a housing scheme
and also prescribing the procedure for inquiry and report to aid the Government
to come to the conclusion as to whether the previous approval should be given
for any scheme prepared by any of the house building societies which requires
the Government to acquire any land for carrying out any such scheme.
11. By
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984) several amendments have
been introduced in the said Act including in the definition "corporation
owned or controlled by the State", "Company" and "public
purpose".
The
aforesaid amendments came into force with effect from 24.9.1984. Section 3(cc)
defines the expression "corporation owned or controlled by the State"
:
"3(cc)
- the expression "corporation owned or controlled by the State" means
any body corporate established by or under a Central. Provincialor State Act. and includes a Government company as defined in
Section 617of the Companies Act, 1956, a society registeredunder the Societies
Act, 1860, orunder any 551 corresponding law for the time being in force, in a
State, being a society established or administered by Government and a co-
operative society within the meaning of any law relating to co-operative
societies fix the time being in force in any State, being a co- operative
society in which not less than fifty-one per centum of the paidup share capital
is held by the Central Government or by any State Government ,or Governments,
or partly by the Central Government and partly by one or more State
Governments.
12.
The expression 'Company' has been defined in Section 3(e) of the Act.
"3(e)-
the expression "Company" means- (i) a Company as defined in Section 3
of the Companies Act, 1956, other than a Government company referred to in
clause (cc);
(ii)a
society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or under any
corresponding law for the time being in forc e in a State, other than a society
referred to in clause (cc);
(iii)a
cooperative society within the meaning of any law relating to cooperative
societies for the time being in force in any State, other than a co-operative
society referred to in clause (cc)." 133. The expression "public
purpose" has been defined in Section 3(f) of the Act.
"3(f)-
the expression "public purpose " includes - (i) the provision of
village-sites, or the extension, planned development or improvement of existing
village-sites;
(ii)the
provision of land for town or rural planning;
(iii)the
provision of land for planned development of land from public funds in
pursuance of any scheme or policy of Government and subsequent disposal thereof
in whole or in part by lease, assignment or outright sale with the object of
securing further development as planned;
(iv)the
provision of land for a corporation owned or controlled by the State;
(v)
the provision of land for residential purposes to the poor or landless or to
persons residing in areas affected by natural calamities, or to persons
displaced or affected by reason of the implementation of any scheme undertaken
by Government any local authority or a corporation owned or controlled by the
State;
(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 Wm.being in force in any State;
(vii)the
provision of land for any other scheme of development sponsored by Government,
or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by a local
authority; 552 (viii)the provision of any premises or building for locating a
public office, but does not include acquisition of land for Companies."
14.
There is no dispute that the Society with which we are concerned shall not be
covered by the expression "corporation owned or controlled by the
State", because the said expression shall include a co-operative society,
being a co-operative society in which not less than 51 per centum of the
paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government, or by any State
Government or Governments, or partly by the Central Government and partly by
one or more State Governments.
15.
The substituted definition of the expression "Company" in Section 3(e)(iii)
will certainly include the appellant society. The substituted definition of the
expression "Company" shall include cooperative society, within the
meaning of any law relating to cooperative societies other than those referred
to in clause (cc) of Section 3 of the Act. Such co-operative society shall be
deemed to be a com- pany, to which provisions of Chapter VII relating to
acquisition of land for company shall be applicable.
16. In
view of the substituted definition of the expression "public
purpose", in Section 3(f)(vi), the provision for carrying out any housing
scheme sponsored by die Government or by any authority established by
Government for carrying out any such scheme shall be deemed to be a
"public purpose". It further says that the provision of land for
carrying out any housing scheme with prior approval of the State Government by
a cooperative society within the meaning of any law relating to co-operative
societies for the time being in force in any State, shall be deemed to be a
"public purpose". As such for any housing co-operative society lands
can be acquired by the appropriate Government, treating the same as acquisition
for the public purpose.
But,
in that event, there has to be a prior approval of such scheme by the
appropriate Government. When the lands arc acquired for any co-operative
society with prior approval of the scheme by the State Government, there is no
question of application of the provisions of Part _ VII of the Act.
Such
acquisition shall be on the mode of acquisition by the appropriate Government
for any public purpose.
17. If
lands arc acquired for any cooperative society treating it to be a company
within the meaning of Section 3(e), then in view of Section 39 of the. Act the
provisions of Sections 6 to 16 and Sections 18 to 37 shall not be put in force
unless there is previous consent of the appropriate Government, and the co-operative
society has executed an agreement. The consent required under Section 39 of the
Act has to be given by die appropriate Government only after the conditions
mentioned in Section 40 arc fulfilled. Sub- section (1) of Section 40, of the
Act prescribes the conditions:
"40.
Previous enquiry. - (1)Such consent shall not be given unless the appropriate
Government be satisfied, either on the report of the Collector under Section
5-A , Subsection (2), or by an enquiry held as hereinafter provided,- (a) that
the purpose of the acquisition is to obtain land for the erection or dwelling
houses for workmen 553 employed by the Company or for the provision of
amenities directly connected therewith, or (aa) that such acquisition is needed
for the construction of some building or work for a Company which is engaged or
is taking steps for engaging itself in any industry or work which is for a
public purpose, or (b) that such acquisition is needed for the construction of
some work, and that such work is likely to prove useful to, the public."
18. In
view of sub-section (1) of Section 40, before giving a consent the appropriate
Government has to be satisfied that the purpose of acquisition is for any of
the purposes mentioned in clauses (a), (aa) and (b) of the said Section.
Clause
(a) clearly links the object of acquisition for the erection of dwelling houses
for workmen employed by the Company or to provide amenities directly connected
there- with. Clause (aa) requires that such acquisition is needed for the
construction of some building or work for a Company which is engaged itself in
any industry or work which is for a public purpose. Similarly, clause (b) also
requires that acquisition should be for the construction of some work, which is
likely to prove useful to the public. Section 44-A of the Act,is relevant:
"44-A.
Restriction an transfer, etc. -No Company for which any land is acquired under
this Part shall be entitled to transfer the said land or any part thereof by
sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except with the previous sanction of
the appropriate Government.
19. In
view of Section 44-A, no company/co-operativel society for which the land has
been acquired under the said Part - VII shall be entitled to transfer the said
land or any part thereof by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except
with the previous sanction of the appropriate Govern- ment. It need not be
pointed out that the framers of the Act have put several conditions and
restrictions in respect of acquisition of land for a- company/co-operative
society if the lands are acquired under Part - VII of the Act.
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 68 of 1984 in Section 3(f)(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?
21.
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 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
cooperative 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 554
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.
22. In
the present case, a hybrid procedure appears to have been followed. Initially,
the appellant society through M/s. 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 of the
appellant society treating it to be a "company". The allegation made
on behalf of the appellant society that the housing scheme had been approved by
the appropriate Government on 7.11.1984 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 for the 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 en- tered into agreement with the
appellant 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(1) and for this, more than one crore of rupees
was paid to M/s. S.R. Constructions (respondent No. 11).
23.Mr.
G,. Ramaswami, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,
submitted that merely because the appellant society had entered into an
agreement with respondent No. 11, M/s S.R.Constructions in which the latter for
the consideration paid to it had assured that the lands in question shall be
acquired by the State Government, no adverse inference should be drawn because
that may amount to a tall claim made on behalf of M/s S.R. Constructions in the
agreements He pointed out that the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1)
have been issued beyond the time stipulated in the agreement and as such, it should
be held that the State Government has exercised its statutory power for
acquisition of the lands in normal course, only after taking all facts and
circumstances into consideration.
There
is no dispute that in terms of agreement dated 1.2.1985 payments have been made
by the appellant society to M/s S.R. Constructions. This circumstance alone
goes a long way to support the contention of the writ petitioners that their
lands have 555 not been acquired in normal course or for any public purpose. In
spite of the repeated query, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
society could not point out or produce any order of the State Government under
Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act granting prior approval and prescribing conditions
and restrictions in respect of the use of the lands which were to be acquired
for a public purpose. There is no restriction or bar on the part of the
appellant society on carving out the size of the plots or the manner of
allotment or in respect of construction over the same. That is why the framers
of the Act have required the appropriate Government to grant prior approval of
any housing scheme presented by any cooperative society before the lands are
acquired treating such requirement and acquisition for public purpose. It is incumbent
on part of the appropriate government while granting approval to examine
different aspects of the matter so that it may serve the public interest and
not the interest of few who can as well afford to acquire such lands by
negotiation in open market. According to us, the State Government has not
granted the prior approval in terms of Section 3(f) of the Act to the housing
scheme in question. The power under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act has been
exercised for extraneous consideration and at the instance of the persons, who
had no role in the decision making process - whether the acquisition of the
lands in question shall be for a public purpose. This itself is enough to
vitiate the whole acquisition proceeding and render the same as invalid.
24. In
the present case there has been contravention of Section 3(f) (vi) of the Act
in as much as there was no prior approval of the State Government as required
by the said Section before steps for acquisition of the lands were taken. The
report of Shri G.K.V. Rao points out as to how the appellant society admitted
large number of persons as members who cannot be held to be genuine members,
the sole object being to transfer the lands acquired for 'public purpose', to
outsiders as part of commercial venture, undertaken by the office bearer of the
appellant society.
We are
in agreement with the finding of the High Court that the statutory
notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act have been issued
due to the role played by M/s 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 of the public purpose but at
the instance of agent who had collected more than a crore of rupees for getting
the lands acquired by the State Gov- ernment.
25.
The appeals arc accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case
there shall be no orders as to costs.
26. We
direct that as a result of quashing of the land acquisition proceedings
including the notifications as aforesaid, the possession of the lands shall be
restored to the respective land owners irrespective of the fact whether they
had challenged the acquisition of their lands or not.
On
restoration of the possession to the land owners they shall refund the amounts
received by them as compensation or otherwise in respect of their lands. The
appellant, the respondents and the State Government including all concerned
authorities/persons shall implement the afore- 556 said directions at an early
date.
H.M.T. House Building Co-operative Society v. M. Venkataswamappa
& Ors.
SPECIAL
LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 1155057 OF 1991 WITH
(SLP (Civil) Nos. 12104-07, 12600-03, 1315080, 18297-300, 13114, 13339,
12032-37, 12535-37 of 1991 and... /92 (CC 16194/92).
27.
connected Appeal Nos. 301 119 of 1994 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 11482-90
of 1991) H.M.T. House Building Co- op. Society v. Syed Khader & Ors, have
already been disposed of by a reasoned judgment. The reasons given for
dismissing the said appeals are equally applicable in the facts and
circumstances or the present case. Accordingly, these special leave petitions
filed on behalf of the same House Building Co-operative Society are dismissed.
No costs.
28. In
the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11482-90 of 1991, after the dismissal
of the appeals a direction has been given that as a result of the quashing of
the land acquisition proceedings including the notifications in question, the
possession of the land shall be restored to the respective land owners
irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of their
lands or not.
A
further direction has been given that on restoration of the possession to the
land owners, they shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or
otherwise in respect of their lands. We issue a similar direction even in this
case. The petitioner, the respondents and the State Government including all concerned
authorities/persons shall implement the aforesaid directions at an early date.
Vyalikaval
House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Narayana Reddy and Ors. etc. etc,
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C)NOS. 12104 07, 12600-03, 13150-80, 18297-300 OF 1991.
29.
Lands on basis of the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, had been acquired for the petitioner-House Building
Society, treating the said acquisition to be for a public purpose. No order of
the State Government as required by Section 3(f)(vi) granting prior approval
for acquisition of the lands in question for the housing scheme of the
petitioner-society has been produced. The petitioner society had also entered
into an agreement with the contractor more or less on the same terms and
conditions as was in the case of H.M.T. House Building Co-operative Society,
assuring that the lands in question shall be acquired on basis of the
notifications issued by the State Government under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of
the Act. The High Court in its impugned judgment has given details of the
allegations made against the petitioner society regarding collection of huge
amounts from different applicants for site who were not even members of the
society and how the society had entered into an agreement with agents, who with
their influence have got the Ian& acquired.
The
High Court has also referred to an 557 advertisement issued by the petitioner
society inviting persons who want to have mansions in the city of Bangalore.
It
also gave the name and address of a representative at Dubai. On basis of the aforesaid
materials, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the Society itself
was not a bona fide House Building Society. The High Court has also recorded a
finding that the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act had been
issued at the instance of the agents appointed by the petitioner society, to
whom huge amounts had been paid for influencing the Government to issue the
aforesaid notifications. Mr. Ramaswamy, appearing for the petitioner society
purported to distinguish this case on facts from the case of H.M.T.House
Building Co- operative Society. But according to us, the facts of the present
case are similar to the case of H.M.T.House Building Co-operative Society and
there is no scope to interfere with the order of the High Court, quashing the
notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1). Accordingly, the special leave
petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner society are dismissed. No costs.
30. In
the appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 11482-90 of 1991, after the dismissal of
the appeals a direction has been given that as a result of the quashing of the
land acquisition proceedings including the notifications in question, the
possession of the land shall be restored to the respective land owners
irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of their
lands or not.
A
further direction has been given that on restoration of the possession to the
land owners, they shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or
otherwise in re- spect of their lands. We issue a similar direction even in
this case. The petitioner, the respondents and the State Government including
all concerned authorities/ persons shall implement the aforesaid directions at
an early date.
Amarjyothi House Building Co-operative Society Lid., V. State
of Karnataka & Ors. etc SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 13114 AND 13339 OF
1991
31.
These special leave petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioner Amar jyothi
House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.for setting aside the judgment of the
High Court, quashing the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, acquiring lands for the petitioner society. From the judgment
of the High Court, it appears that this society also had entered into an
agreement with a developer who had assured to get the lands in question
acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Petitioner society paid
huge amount to the said developer for the said object. In this case also there
is no order of the State Government, granting prior approval for acquisition of
the lands in question, as required by Section 3(f)(vi)of the Act. The High
Court has also referred to the Report of Mr. G.V.K. Rao, about the bogus
members. According to the finding, the Society had admitted 4,050 bogus
members. As such, there is no scope for taking a view contrary one which we
have taken while disposing of the appeals (arising out of S.L.P(C)Nos. 11482-90
of 1991) filed on behalf of the H.M.T. House Building 558 Co-operative Society.
These special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
32. In
the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11482-90 of 199 1, after the dismissal
of the appeals a direction has been given that as a result of the quashing of
the land acquisition proceedings including the notifications in question, the
possession of the land shall be restored to the respective land owners
irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of their
lands or not.
A
further direction has been given that on restoration of the possession to the
land owners, they shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or
otherwise in re- spect of their lands. We issue a similar direction even in this
case. The petitioner, the respondents and the State Government including all
concerned authorities/persons shall implement the aforesaid directions at an
early date.
The
Bangalore City Chickpet House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., v. Venkamma @
Venkatamma & ors. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NOS 1203237 OF 1991
33.
These special leave petitions have been filed for setting aside the judgment of
the High Court, quashing the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, on the ground that the said notifications had been issued
at the instance of the agents, appointed by the petitioner society. The High
Court has also referred to the agreement entered into by the petitioner and the
said middle-man, who had undertaken to get the lands in question acquired. The
agent had undertaken in the agreement to manage all concerned "at all
levels". No order granting prior approval by the, State Government for the
acquisition of the lands, as required by Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act has been
produced. According to us, the facts of the present case are no way different
from that of the H.M.T.House Building Co-operative Society, which has been
disposed of by a reasoned judgment. That judgment fully covers the present
special leave petitions also. Accordingly, the special leave petitions are
dismissed. No costs.
34. In
the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11482-90 of 1991, after the dismissal
of the appeals a direction has been given that as a result of the quashing of
the land acquisition proceedings including the notifications in question, the
possession of the land shall be restored to the respective land owners
irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of their
lands or not.
A
further direction has been given that on restoration of the possession to the
land owners, they shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or
otherwise in re- spect of their lands. We issue a similar direction even in
this case. The petitioner, the respondents and the State Government including
all concerned authorities/persons shall implement the aforesaid directions at
an early date.
REMCO
(BHEL) House Building Co-op. Society Ltd. v. Sri Neelakantaiah & Ors.
559
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 12535-37 OF 1991
35.
These special leave petitions have been filed against the judgment of the High
Court, quashing the notifications under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, on the ground that the notifications had been issued at the
instance of the agent, appointed by the petitioner society.
The
learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, could not point out as to how
the facts of the present case are dif- ferent from the facts of the H.M.T. House Building Society, so far this aspect is
concerned. He has, however, pointed out that in the present case, an order had
been issued by the State Government granting prior approval. In this
connection, reference was made to an order dated 9.8.1984 by which it is said
that the Government had granted prior approval for the acquisition of the lands
in question.
According
to us, an order dated 9.8.1984 cannot be an order under Section 3(f)(vi)
because the definition of 'public purpose' which was introduced by Act 68 of
1984 came in force with effect from 24.9.1984. As such there was no occasion
for the State Government to exercise power under Section 3(f)(vi) on 9.8.1984.
Any such order must be in terms of Section 39 read with Section 40 of Part VII
of the Act, which part is applicable when acquisition of land is made for
companies. It is surprising as to how the present House Building Co-op. Society
was being treated even as a company on 9.8.1984, because the new definition of
company was also introduced in Section 3(e) with effect from 24.9.1984.
Accordingly, there is no merit in these special leave petitions, which are
dismissed. No costs.
36. In
the appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 11482-90 of 1991, after the dismissal of
the appeals a direction has been given that as a result of the quashing of the
land acquisition proceedings including the notifications in question, the
possession of the land shall be restored to the respective land owners
irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of their
lands or not.
A
further direction has been given that on restoration of the possession to the
land owners, they shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or
otherwise in re- spect of their lands. We issue a similar direction even in
this case. The petitioner, the respondents and the State Government including
all concerned authorities/persons shall implement the aforesaid directions at
an early date.
State
of Karnataka and Ors. V. Narayana Reddy and Ors.
SPECIAL
LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 58245920 OF 1992
37.
The special leave petition has been filed on behalf of the State of Karnataka
against the same judgment of the High Court, quashing the notifications under
Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, acquiring lands for
different House Building Co-operative Societies. The State of Karnataka has
purported to justify the issuance of those notifications. Whether the lands in
question had been acquired in accordance with law has been examined in detail
in the case of H.M.T. House Building Co-operative Society.
In
view of the reasons given in the said judgment, the special leave petition has
to be 560 dismissed, The application for condonation of delay in filing the
special leave petition is also dismissed. No cost.
38. In
the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11482-90 of 1991, after the dismissal
of the appeals a direction has been given that as a result of the quashing of
the land acquisition proceedings including the notifications in question, the
possession of the land shall be restored to the respective land owners
irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of their
lands or not.
A
further direction has been given that on restoration of the possession to the
land owners, they shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or
otherwise in re- spect of their lands. We issue a similar direction even in
this case. The petitioners and the respondents including all concerned
authorities/persons shall implement the aforesaid directions at an early date.
Bank
Officers & officials House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sanjeevappa
and Om Civil Appeal Nos. 3020-24 of 1995(Arising out of S.L.P(C)Nos. 12530-34
of 1991) AND The Bank Officers and officials House House Building Co- operative
Society Ltd. v. N.Jayarama& On. Civil Appeal Nos. 3025 of 1995 (Arising out
of S.L.P(C)Nos. 13189 of 1991) 39. Leave granted.
40. On
behalf of the appellant society, it was pointed out that in these cases, the
appellant society had not entered into any agreement with any agent or
contractor as had been done in other cases referred to above. It was also
pointed out that some of the land holders in the present case had filed writ
applications, which had been dismissed by the High Court. Special Leave
Petitions against the order of the High Court have also been dismissed by this
Court. It was urged that in this background the High Court should not have
quashed the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
so far the acquisition for the appellant society is concerned. The stand taken
on behalf of the appellants, in these appeals was not challenged on behalf of
the respondents. The special feature of the present case as already pointed out
above is that the ap- pellant society had not entered into any agreement with
any agent or contractor to get the lands acquired. It was not stated that there
was no prior approval of the appropriate Government to the scheme in question.
According to us, the facts of the present case are different from the others,
which have been disposed of by this Court. Accordingly, the appeals arc allowed
and the judgment of the High Court so far it relates to the appellant society,
is set aside. No costs.
Back
