R. Rajashekar And Ors vs Trinity House Build Coop. Society & Ors

The relevant facts which are required for us to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder:

Society from the state government and prepare a Layout Plan as per the regulations of the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “BDA”) and Town Planning Authority, and to get the plan sanctioned by BDA in favour of the respondent-Society. In addition to the aforesaid responsibility, he had also undertaken to execute the layout work in accordance with the sanctioned layout plan under the supervision of the BDA and get the sites released from the said authority in favour of the respondent-Society. In terms of the agreement, Mr. S. Rangarajan was to be paid Rs. 160/- per square yard by the respondent-Society, the calculation of which was to be done at Rs. 100 per sq. yard and calculation of cost of land at Rs. 60 per sq. yard for the layout charges. The details of the payment plan are outlined as under:

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 entered 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)” Further, in the case of Vyalikaval House Building Coop. Society v. V. Chandrappa[11], this Court held as under:

Thus, the impugned notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act are bad in law as the same suffer from not only legal mala fides but also legal malice, which amounts to colourable exercise of power by the state government and therefore, the same are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.

In view of the fact that for the reasons stated supra, we have already come to the conclusion that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the acquired lands are liable to be quashed and there is no need for us to render an opinion on this question of law in these cases, as interesting as it is.

Answer to Point nos. 3 and 4:

Since we have set aside the common impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, we consequently restore the common judgment and order of the learned single Judge passed in the Writ Petitions, wherein the acquisition notifications and proceedings in respect of the lands of some of original landowners have been quashed at their instance. The same shall now be enjoyed by them. So also the appellants in the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 23336-23339 of 2004 are entitled for the same relief as we quashed the acquisition notifications and proceedings. For this purpose, we direct the Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore, Urban District and also the Commissioner of Police/DGP to extend all such protection and assistance to the landowners to ensure that this judgment and order is implemented properly.

All pending applications are disposed of.

……………………………………………………J. [V.GOPALA GOWDA] ……………………………………………………J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi, September 15, 2016 ITEM NO.1A-For JUDGMENT COURT NO.8 SECTION IVA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS C.A. Nos.9091-9119/2016 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13656-13684/2004 R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS TRINITY HOUSE BUILD COOP. SOCIETY & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. Nos.9120-9148/2016 @ SLP(C) No. 18090-18118/2004 C.A. Nos.9149-9152/2016 @ SLP(C) No. 23336-23339/2004 Date : 15/09/2016 These matters were called on for pronouncement of JUDGMENT today.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.

Leave granted.

The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed Reportable Judgment. I.A. Nos. 74-102/2010, applications for impleadment are rejected. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.