V. Prabhakar &
Ors. Vs. Bangalore Mahanagara Palika & Ors. [2008] INSC 1244 (28 July 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO 4681 OF 2008 (Arising out
of SLP)No....................CC 5931 of 2008) Sri V. Prabhakar and Ors.
...Appellant VERSUS Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Bangalore, Karnataka and Ors.
...Respondents
O R D E R
1.
Delay
condoned.
2.
Leave
granted.
3.
This
appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 19th of September, 2007
of a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal
No. 6192 of 2002, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court had 1 reversed
the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court quashing the acquisition
proceeding in respect of the land belonging to the appellants and rejected the
writ application of the appellants.
4.
The
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore, took a resolution to acquire the
property of the appellants bearing No. 67/1 and 67/2 situated at 3rd Main Road,
Ramachandrapuram, Division No. 20, Bangalore, which was purchased by the
appellants by registered deeds of sale on 5th of December, 1996, to establish a
school with a playground and a hospital.
The purpose for which
the land was acquired could not be disputed that such purpose was for a public
purpose. The State Government thereafter, after approval of the resolution to
acquire the aforesaid property, issued a notification on 18th of June, 1998
under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the "Act").
Since the appellants had purchased the acquired property, they challenged the
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on the ground that the acquisition
was not bonafide. It was alleged by the appellants that the acquisition was
malafide because the property was sought to be acquired to start a school with
a playground and a hospital, which would not be possible to establish on the
small piece of land measuring less than half an acre belonging to the
appellants. Since the notification was not withdrawn, the appellants moved a
writ application challenging the acquisition on the ground that acquisition was
not bonafide. The learned single Judge of the High Court held that the area
acquired was little less than half an acre and, therefore, 3 it was not
possible to establish school with a playground and a hospital in such a small
area. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge of the High Court held that there
could not exist a public purpose for acquiring the property and, therefore,
quashed the acquisition proceedings. An appeal was carried by the respondents
before the Division Bench of the High Court which, by the impugned order, had
set aside the order of the learned Single Judge holding that the land so
acquired was acquired for public purpose for the establishment of a school with
a playground and a hospital, and that if the area of the acquired land which is
half an acre is not sufficient to satisfy all the three requirements, namely-
(i) Establishment of
a school;
(ii) A play ground;
(iii) A hospital,
at least one of such
requirements could be satisfied. Upon these findings, the Division Bench of the
High Court had set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and held that
the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act could not be quashed on the
ground of malafides. It is this order of the Division Bench of the High Court,
the SLP was filed in this Court, which on grant of leave was heard in presence
of the learned counsel for the parties.
5.
We
have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the entire materials
on record including the contrary findings of the learned Single Judge as well
as of the Division Bench on the question of malafides to acquire the property
of the appellant. It appears from the record that there was no material to
substantiate the case of malafides as made out by the appellants in the writ
application. It also 5 appears from the record that the Deputy Commissioner
(Administration) of the State Government, by his letter dated 1st of September,
1997, found the need for acquisition of the acquired property for the purpose
of establishing a school with a play ground and a hospital for which necessary
amounts have already been deposited. The Division Bench of the High Court, in
our view, rightly pointed out that if the area acquired was not sufficient to
satisfy all the three requirements, then also, the acquired land could be used
for one of the suitable purpose namely a school or a playground or a hospital.
6.
That
apart, we also find that a writ application was filed by the appellants before
the High Court earlier challenging a resolution to acquire the properties of
the appellants for the aforesaid public purpose. The High Court 6 rejected the
writ application and held that there was no ground to hold that the acquired
properties could not be utilized for the purpose of establishing a school with
a playground and a hospital. Unfortunately, it appears that the appellants had
suppressed the fact of rejection of this earlier writ petition in the
subsequent writ application challenging the notification under Section 4(1) of
the Act.
7.
For
the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal stands
dismissed without any order as to costs.
...................................................J.
[TARUN CHATTERJEE]
New
Delhi. .................................................J.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3