IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.5248 of 2005 Between: Pydah Krishna Prasad ..... PETITIONER AND The Principal Secretary (Revenue) Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and 47 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.5248 of 2005 O R D E R: The writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondents Nos.1 to 4 in not considering his representation dated 21.12.2004 to enquire into the acquisition proceedings made in T.S.No.145/1 of an extent of 3.93 cents situated at Ramanayyapeta village, Kakinada Mandal, East Godavari District for the benefit of R48-society, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is stated that the petitioner and 19 others are owners of the land of an extent of Ac.4.05 in Sy.No.145/1 situated in Ramanayyapeta village, Kakinada Mandal, East Godavari District. All the said 19 other persons said to have been given GPA in favour of the petitioner to represent them and to take all necessary legal steps in respect of the said land. It is stated that notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued to acquire an extent of Ac.2.38 cents for the benefit of the members of the R48-society, but the acquisition was made to an extent of Ac.3.93 cents. The said notification was questioned on various grounds in W.P.3560/1983 and the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 18.03.1986. It is stated that the Land Acquisition Officer passed award No.1/87 on 10.04.1987 determining the compensation for acquisition of an extent of Ac.2.38 cents only and no award was passed for the remaining land of Ac.1.55 cents. Aggrieved by the order in W.P.3560/1983 dated 18.03.1986, a writ appeal in W.A.375/1987 was filed and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 15.04.1997 allowed the said writ appeal, modifying the order of the learned Single Judge declaring that the acquisition proceedings of land is only in respect of Ac.2.38 cents out of Ac.3.93 cents, and given liberty to the land owners to file applications seeking reference under Sec.18 of the Act for determination of compensation within 60 days from the date of the said order. The Land Acquisition Officer was directed to consider those applications and initiate appropriate action. The landowners were also given liberty to withdraw the compensation amount under protest by filing applications under Sec.18 of the Act seeking reference to Civil Court. 3. It is stated that pursuant to the said order of the Division Bench of this Court, the landowners filed applications before the R4-Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer on 12.06.1997 under Sec.18 of the Act seeking reference of the matter to the Civil Court for enhancement of the compensation. In the meanwhile a land grabbing case in O.P.279/1998 was filed by the R48-society under Sec.7 and 8 of the A.P.Land Grabbing Act 1982, and the said OP was allowed on 09.01.2004. Against which one of the respondents in the said O.P. filed W.P.8814/2004 before this Court and the said writ petition was dismissed on 27.08.2004. It is stated that when the respondents made an attempt to lay road in the remaining extent of Ac.1.55 cents, which was the subject matter of reference under Sec.18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner issued a legal notice. In the meanwhile, petitioners came to know that the so called beneficiary society is a bogus one and further enquiries revealed that the entire acquisition made by the revenue department is as a private business venture, which is evident from the paper publication dated 09.01.1987, published on 23.01.1987, under which the applications were invited from the general public for registering membership in the society stating that the said society is reserving house sites which are valuable. On further enquiry, it was revealed that the society is now defunct and even otherwise is running by bogus members, and in fact, real estate venture was being carried out by the society. Though the High Court confirmed the notification, the entire facts were not placed before this Court by the revenue authorities who are interested in illegal acquisition. As the acquisition was purported to be for the benefit of private society, Part-VII procedure of the Land Acquisition Act has to be followed which includes an agreement between the society and the Government. This agreement clearly is a statute agreement and apparently was not entered into by the parties, and even if any such agreement was in existence, it would have reflected the fraudulent facts, as the society itself is a bogus society which is indulging in real estate business. Bringing all these facts the petitioner made a representation dated 21.12.2004 requesting the respondents to initiate necessary steps and enquire into the matter and restore the land, but no action is taken. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 4. The undisputed facts are that a notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in G.O.Ms.No.104 published on 20.07.1979 for acquisition of Ac.2.38 cents and the said notification was questioned in W.P.3560/1983. Enquiry under Sec.5A was also conducted and after conducting enquiry only W.P.3560/1983 was dismissed on 18.03.1986. Aggrieved by the same, writ appeal in W.A.375/1987 was filed and the same was allowed by order dated 15.04.1997, modifying the orders passed in W.P.3560/1983. Award was passed on 10.04.1987. Pursuant to the liberty given by the Division Bench in W.A.375/1987 the petitioners filed applications for reference under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada filed counter stating that pursuant to the Sec.4(1) notification, the petitioner and others participated in the enquiry under Sec.5A of the Land Acquisition Act. During the enquiry, neither the petitioner nor two others who have attended the enquiry raised any objection for acquisition of their lands, except requesting to pay compensation @Rs.60/- per sq.yard. Draft declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was also approved and the land proposed for acquisition has got surveyed and sub-division record was prepared and scrutinized. The Municipal Commissioner, Kakinada sent requisition for acquiring 6,577 sq.yards in T.S.No.145/1 for formation of the master plan road. Therefore, revised draft declaration under Sec.6 to an extent of Ac.2.38 cents was submitted to the Government, though initially Sec.4(1) notification was approved for acquisition of Ac.3.93 cents in the said Sy.No.145/1. The proposals were approved for acquisition of the land of an extent of Ac.2.38 cents and published in A.P.Gazette on 07.09.1982 and thereafter, all the formalities required to be followed under the Land Acquisition Act have been strictly complied with by issuing notices under Sec.9(1) and 10 and Sec.9(3) and 10. Award enquiry was conducted on 21.08.1986. Petitioners and others except filing petition for higher compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per acre, no other objections have been filed. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value @Rs.55,000/- per acre and compensation was also fixed for the trees in the award proceedings. 6. Pursuant to the modified orders of the Division Bench in W.A.375/1987 dated 15.04.1997, applications were filed under Sec.18(2) of the Act seeking reference to the Civil Court for determination of compensation. It is further stated that the respondents have not acquired an extent of Ac.1.55 cents as the road shown in the master plan has to be laid and since the Municipal Commissioner has not provided funds, the said land could not be proposed for acquisition. The road was already laid on the northern side of the acquired land for the use of the society members. As and when the funds are provided by the Corporation, the required land would be proposed for acquisition. It is stated that the petitioner is still in possession of the said land, which is not proposed for acquisition. In so far as the allegations made against the society, it is stated that the petitioner has not made the society as party respondent. As there is no bar, any employee of the any department including the Revenue Department can enroll as member of the society. The allegation that the revenue officers are interested in the acquisition is denied. The acquisition proceedings are in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act alone and in fact, the representation of the petitioners dated 21.12.2004 was not at all filed and received in the office. 7. Pursuant to the interim order in WPMP.6972/2005 which was filed directing the respondents not to permit the Salaried Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited of Kakinada, this Court by order dated 14.06.2005 directed the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, a notice dated 07.07.2005 was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the petitioner directing him to attend the enquiry along with copy of representation dated 21.12.2004 so as to take necessary action. Petitioner himself requested for postponement of enquiry. Another notice dated 19.07.2005 directing him to attend the enquiry on 30.07.2005 was issued. He has again requested for postponement of enquiry to 06.08.2005. A further notice dated 07.11.2005 was also issued to the petitioner directing him to attend the enquiry along with copy of representation dated 21.12.2004 as a last opportunity. It is stated that the said land was acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by following due process of law and award was also passed on 10.04.1987. There are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. 8. The 43 members of the Society filed an application in WPMP.6879/2006 to implead as party respondents in this writ petition stating that they are the members of the Salaried Employees Cooperative House Building Society, which was registered on 23.09.1978 under the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act in the office of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kakinada with registration No.C-725. The said society was started with the objects of building, buying, selling, hiring and developing the land in accordance with the cooperative principles for the benefit of its members and to give land to its members for construction of new dwelling houses. Any employee residing in the area of operations of the society employed in any of the Departments of the State or Central Government or any registered cooperative society in public, joint cooperative sector, who has attained the majority, who is competent to construct is of sound mind, who does not own any house either in his name or in the name of his wife or husband, minor children and who is not a member in any other building society in the same area, shall be eligible for admission as member. It is stated that the land was acquired for the benefit of the society and the society informed the members about the acquisition and the proposal to divide the land into house site plots of 300 square yards each and accordingly, directed that each of the member should deposit Rs.15,000/- per plot, vide circular No.9/85-86 dated 15.04.1986 and 63 persons including the petitioner deposited the amount @Rs.15,000/- per plot. It is stated that due to litigation initiated by the landowners, the allotment of plots could not take place. The writ petition is filed with false allegations and with oblique motives. The society is not defunct society, there are no any bogus members, and the allegations are made maliciously with a view to prejudice the mind of the Court. In fact, till 19.11.2005 there is an elected members committee, which is managing the affairs of the said society. 9. The society also filed WPMP.24953/2005 for its impleadment which was ordered impleading the society as R48 in this writ petition. The R48 society states that after acquiring the said land for the benefit of the society, as stated above, the society got prepared detailed plan for construction of apartment in 8 blocks of 64 flats, obtained approval from the Director of Town and country planning vide B.P.No.115/A/90. However, the same could not be implemented due to unauthorized encroachments by the third parties and therefore, the society filed a land grabbing case in LGOP.279/1998 on the file of the III Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada against the encroachers and the same was allowed by order dated 08.01.2004 and encroachers were evicted on 06.10.2004. Since the approved lay out plan for construction of apartments was lapsed, the society has been taking steps for obtaining fresh permission for construction of flats in the said land. It is stated that the departmental authorities have regularly audited its accounts and there are no complaints whatsoever till date. The membership of the society as on date of filing of counter in August 2005 is 1465. The society has already taken up nearly four colonies in and around Kakinada town from 1982 onwards and nearly 598 of its members have been provided house sites. The society has still to provide house sites to 867 of its members, who are awaited for allotment from 1979 onwards. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the acquisition of the land of the society itself is not for the public purpose and therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 21.12.2004 to conduct enquiry in respect of the affairs of the society, as it is alleged that the society is a bogus society which is indulging in real estate trade. It is further stated that power of eminent domain for acquiring the property of the citizens should not be put to fraudulent purpose since the enquiries reveal that the society has been misleading the Government indulging in misrepresentation and fraud, the entire proceedings get vitiated and the Government will have the power to set right the fraud. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society v V.Chandrappa[1]. No doubt the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case held that if the acquisition found to be totally mala fide and not for public purpose, ground of delay in filing the writ petition or the petition having acquiesced in the proceedings by participating in award enquiry is not tenable. When the entire acquisition emanated from the tainted notification, any settlement on the basis the said notification cannot be validated. The facts of the said case are that the land was acquired pursuant to the notification issued in 1984 and in batch of the writ petitions the Karnataka High Court held that the whole acquisition proceedings stand vitiated on account of fraud, as the society was found to be not bona fide housing society. The landowners challenged the acquisition proceedings after the lapse of 14 years and though the learned single Judge negatives their claim, the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court allowed the same, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on the ground that as the housing society itself was not bona fide the whole acquisition cannot be validated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that R48 society is not bona fide and it is bogus society and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get enquiry about the genuineness or otherwise of the said society. I am of the opinion that if the R48 society is not bona fide housing society and its members are bogus, the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is squarely applies to the facts of this case. 11. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner-GPA holder of other landowners is entitled to ask and get the enquiry conducted with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the R48-society. 12. The petitioner neither is a member nor connected to the society. If the society is genuine or not is a matter to be decided and enquired into by the concerned authorities under the provisions of A.P.Cooperative Societies Act. In the instant case, when the entire land acquisition proceedings have become final, taking the paper publication dated 09.01.1987, the petitioner assumes and presumes that the society is bogus. The so called publication reads that the society issued a publication inviting applications from the employees of the Government and the other departments to reserve house plots of 300 sq.yards each for allotment. Merely because of some publication was made by the society, it cannot be said that the said society is not bona fide housing society. No application has been filed before the concerned authorities to enquire into the affairs of the society. There was no any order or declaration that the said society is not a bona fide society. However, the so called unauthorized general power of attorney said to have been given in favour of the petitioner on 17.03.1999 is not with regard to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the society. However, as per the counter of the Revenue Divisional Officer, no such representation dated 21.12.2004 was filed. However, pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, a notice was issued requesting the petitioner to attend the enquiry along with copy of the said representation, but the petitioner himself requested to postpone the enquiry. 13. No material whatsoever has been placed before this Court with regard to genuineness or otherwise of the affairs of the R48 society and no reply was filed by the petitioner controverting the averments and facts stated in the counter filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as Respondents Nos.1 to 47-Members of the society. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. I find no merits in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 24.03.2011 Dsr [1] 2007 (9) SCC 304