Case: B. Anjanappa &amp; Others Vs. Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited &amp; Others

private person with the written sanction of the BDA and subject to the terms and conditions which it may specify. Sub-section (2) of Section 32 provides for making of written application along with plans and sections showing various matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (d). Similar provisions are contained in Section 18 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act."Although, the appellant may not have been required to frame a scheme in strict conformity with the provisions of the 1976 Act and the Housing Board Act, but it was bound to frame scheme disclosing the total number of members eligible for allotment of sites, the requirement of land including the size of the plots and broad indication of the mode and manner of development of the land as a layout. The State Government could then apply mind whether or not the housing scheme framed by the appellant should be approved. However, as mentioned above, the appellant did not produce any evidence before the High Court to show that it had framed a housing scheme and the same was approved by the State Government before the issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act. Even before this Court, no material has been produced to show that, in fact, such a scheme had been framed and approved by the State Government. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court rightly referred to Section 3(f)(vi) and held that in the absence of a housing scheme having been framed by the appellant, the acquisition of land belonging to respondent No.3 was not for a public purpose as defined in Section 3(f)(vi)." 20. In the context of the aforesaid verdicts, we asked Shri V.N.Raghupathy, learned counsel for the State whether respondent No.1 had submitted a housing scheme for the approval of the State Government. In reply, Shri Raghupathy made a categorical statement that respondent No.1 had not submitted any scheme for the approval of the State Government. 21. 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 Courts 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. 22. 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(1) of the 1894 Act. He also relied upon the judgment in Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha v. Narayanamma (2003) 1 SCC 228. 23. In Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. State of Karnataka and others 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. 24. The judgment in Kanak Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha v. Narayanamma (supra), if read 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(1) cannot be treated as the State Governments approval of the housing scheme framed by respondent No.1. It is also apposite to note that in Kanak Gruhas 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. 25. We also find merit in the appellants contention that direction given by the learned Single Judge for issue of a declaration under Section 6(1) was totally unwarranted. As a matter of fact, the entire proceedings leading to the issue of notification under Section 4(1) were vitiated due to the intervention of the extraneous factor, i.e., the proposal prepared by Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies and approval thereof by the Revenue Department in total disregard of the decision taken by the Council of Ministers on 30.12.1997. The direction given by the Revenue Minister of State to issue declaration without even waiting for the expiry of four weeks time specified in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.30629 and 30630 of 1999 was not only contrary to the decision of the Council of Ministers, but was ex facie contemptuous of the High Courts order. 26. We may also mention that the direction given by the learned Single Judge on 9.3.2004 was infructuous because the time within which the declaration under Section 6(1) could have been issued had expired on 28.7.2000 and in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Padmausundara Rao (Dead) and others vs. State of T.N. and others (2002) 3 SCC 533 , the State Government could not have issued notification under Section 6(1) after that date. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench completely overlooked the mandate of proviso (ii) to Section 6(1).27. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed.28. If respondent No.1 is in possession of the acquired land or any portion thereof, then the same shall be returned to the concerned landowners within a period of two months from today. This direction shall apply not only qua the appellants but other landowners who may not have filed writ appeals or the special leave petitions, may be due to poverty, illeteracy or ignorance.29. However, it is made clear that the above mentioned directions shall not apply to such of the landowners who have withdrawn the special leave petitions.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]27. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed.28. If respondent No.1 is in possession of the acquired land or any portion thereof, then the same shall be returned to the concerned landowners within a period of two months from today. This direction shall apply not only qua the appellants but other landowners who may not have filed writ appeals or the special leave petitions, may be due to poverty, illeteracy or ignorance.29. However, it is made clear that the above mentioned directions shall not apply to such of the landowners who have withdrawn the special leave petitions.