Bangalore City Coop Hsg.Socy.Ltd vs State Of Karnataka And Ors

2. Although, the High Court quashed the acquisition proceedings mainly on the grounds of violation of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the 1894 Act') and the manipulations made by the appellant through the Estate Agent for acquiring the land, during the pendency of these appeals the parties filed voluminous papers and arguments were advanced by both the sides by relying upon those documents as 3 also the records summoned by the Court from the State Government.

3.4 The aforesaid decision of the State Government was misused by the housing societies which started purchasing lands directly from the landlords for forming the layouts resulting in uncontrolled, unplanned and haphazard development of the city. It also created acute problem of providing civic amenities, transport facilities etc. Therefore, by an order dated 18.6.1985, the State Government abandoned the existing policy of acquiring land through the Revenue Department and entrusted this task to the BDA for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. The State Government also stopped registration of the housing societies and conversion of agricultural lands in favour of the existing societies.

3.5 The Executive Director of the appellant submitted representation dated 7.12.1984 to the Minister for Revenue, Government of Karnataka for the acquisition of 238 acres 27 guntas land at Vajarahalli and Raghuvanahalli villages for formation of a layout for its members. The relevant portions thereof are extracted below:

3.6 The Revenue Department of the State Government vide its letter dated 29.12.1984 forwarded the aforesaid representation to Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore for being placed before the TMC constituted vide letter No. RD-

The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies issued several notices to the appellant to furnish the details of its members and supply other particulars along with copy of the agreement entered with the Estate Agent engaged for formation of the layout, but the needful was not done. After lapse of long time, the President of the appellant submitted memorandum dated 17.9.1987 to the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies (for short, `the Joint Registrar') stating therein that the appellant 12 had engaged M/s. Manasa Enterprises (Estate Agent) for procuring 250 acres land from the landowners. The copies of agreements dated 1.6.1984 and 4.12.1984 executed with M/s.

Manasa Enterprises i.e. Rs.13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) for procuring lands from the agriculturists in favour of the First Party, at the time of the agreement. The said Agreement dated 31.12.87 was signed between the First Party and M/s. Landscape. But this Agreement was cancelled with effect from 1.2.1988 as M/s.

8. NOW the First Party and the Second Party agree to undertake the above works as detailed below: -

The Second Party has agreed to complete the above mentioned works within 18 months from the day of the agreement subject to any delay caused at the BDA and other authorities in procuring land sanctioning or issuing of layout plan."

3.15 On 7.8.1988, the Executive Director of the appellant entered into an agreement with the State Government, the relevant portions of which are extracted hereunder:

5.2 The appellant challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Appeal No. 4246/1998. The State of Karnataka and the Special Land Acquisition Officer also filed Writ Appeal No. 6039/1998. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed both the appeals by common judgment dated 6.2.2004. The Division Bench referred to the judgment of this Court in 1st H.M.T. case and held that the acquisition was vitiated due to adoption of corrupt practice by the appellant, which had engaged an agent for ensuring the acquisition of land and large amounts of money changed hands in the process.

operative society referred to in clause (cc);

39. Previous consent of appropriate Government and execution of agreement necessary. - The provisions of sections 6 to 16 (both inclusive) and sections 18 to 37 (both inclusive) shall not be put in force in order to acquire land for any company under this Part, unless with the previous consent of 59 the appropriate Government, not unless the Company shall have executed the agreement hereinafter mentioned.

(2) Such enquiry shall be held by such officer and at such time and place as the appropriate Government shall appoint.

20. In the present case, a hybrid procedure appears to have been followed. Initially, the appellant-

(iv) Writ Petition No. 15508/1998 - Bachappa v. State of Karnataka was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 9.7.1998 by observing that the acquisition cannot be nullified by entertaining writ petitions filed after three years 89 simply because in H.M.T.'s case the acquisition proceedings were quashed. Writ Appeal Nos. 3810-12/1998 filed against the order of the learned Single Judge were dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 24.8.1998 albeit without assigning reasons. SLP (C) .... CC Nos. 1764-69/1999 were dismissed by this Court on 14.5.1999 by recording the following order:

(ix) Writ Petition No. 17603/1989 Smt. Sumitramma v.

(x) Writ Petition No. 38745/1995 - A.K. Erappa v. State of Karnataka was dismissed by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that the writ petitioners had participated in the award proceedings and agreed that the compensation be disbursed to his power of attorney and also approached the society for allotment of a site. Writ Appeal No. 6914/1996 filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench on 7.10.1996. SLP (C) No. 1528/1997 was summarily dismissed by this Court on 3.2.1997.

(xi) Writ Appeal Nos. 7122-34/1996 - Smt. Hanumakka v.

35. The following are the three ancillary grounds of challenge:

37. It is nobody's case that the advocate who appeared on behalf of the appellant had not made a request that instead of remanding the case to the Single Bench, the Division Bench should hear the parties on merits and dispose of the matter.

38. The appellant's challenge to the finding recorded by the Division Bench that respondent No. 3 had not been given opportunity of hearing under Section 5A is well-founded. We 106 have carefully gone through the proceedings of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and find that Shri Sandip Shah (son of respondent No. 3), had appeared along with his Advocate and after hearing him along with other objectors, the concerned officers submitted report to the State Government.

However, this error in the impugned judgment of the Division Bench is not sufficient for nullifying the conclusion that the acquisition of land was not for a public purpose and that the exercise undertaken by the State Government was vitiated due to the influence of the extraneous considerations. The appellant's challenge to the judgment in P. Ramaiah's case on the ground that no evidence had been produced by the writ petitioner to show that the Estate Agent had indulged in malpractices deserves to be rejected in view of the conclusion recorded by us in relation to the case of respondent No.3.

43. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that some of the members of the appellant may have built their houses on the sites allotted to them, we give liberty to the appellant to negotiate with the respondents for purchase of their land at the prevailing market price and hope that the landowners will, notwithstanding the judgments of the High Court and this Court, agree to accept the market price so that those who have 112 built the houses may not suffer. At the same time, we make it clear that the appellant must return the vacant land to the respondents irrespective of the fact that it may have carved out the sites and allotted the same to its members. This must be done within a period of three months from today and during that period the appellant shall not change the present status of the vacant area/sites. The members of the appellant who may have been allotted the sites shall also not change the present status/character of the land. The parties are left to bear their own costs.