Karnataka High Court
H Narayana vs Government Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2010
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT I3AI\ICAI.0I::-E:_V
DATED THIS THE ism DAY OF MARCH 2OI0 *
PRESENT A VA
THE HONBLE Mr.JUS'I'ICE§ yj.C.sAI_:§*HAIII?IfV: ,
AND
THE HONBLE Mr.JUS'I'ICI§; s.I\I.';~3/I9I'*zANAI?ur{ggI;'g;';v{
WRIT APPEAL NO.1480/2006 .wnsc.w.Nas.--7'55}€_2o1o 3:
756/2010 AND_?'WRIT APPEAL N.O.2204*/2007.9
INW.A.NO.1480 2006 '
Misc.W.Nos.755/2010 & 75672019 I
BETWEEN:
H.NARAYANA.-," I I * V V
s/0.IIA'I'I;.HA.Nm1.4A1AH.
AGED
R/AT.KQDIGEHA;I,=I.I v'II,IIA§3I§.v _ *
BANGALORE.. . _ « _ .. APPE',LLAN'If
{By SR} v."I*ARAI;ARIIM.'--._ s'r;"AI)v. FOR SR1 JANARDHANA.G.,
ADV.)
V' Cb'I?I,I<;{RAIAi:AKA.
BANC}ALO% ~" 560 001.
_ RERBY '1*I~I_E' REVENUE SECRETARY.
" SHECIAI. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.
£3 OVI'; '~ F KARNATAKA.
:3"? I«'I,_c_)CaR_ PODIUM BLOCK.
' -- . V_ ._ 3/ISWESHWARAIAH CENTRE.
'I DLAEMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
1' _"5AIv'GAI.0RE M 560 001.
A " ':é.M/s.NA'I'IoNAII 'I'F3CHNOLOGICA.L
INS"I"ITUTION H O USING CO-OPEERATIVE
SOCIETY LIMITED.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5--G.
PALACE ORCHARDS APAR'I'MEN'l'S.
No.5}. 9"" MAIN. Sm CROSS.
RAJAMAI~IAI.. VILAS EX'I'N..
BANGALORE A 550 080.
REPEY I'IfS SECRETARY RPRAKASH.
4.M/s.S.B.G.HOUS}NC» PRIVATE I,IMI'IfED. _
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER "I--.fHE., ~ '
COMPANIES ACT 1956. "
902. saw 'A' CROSS. Sm MAIN. A
7'"! CROSS. WEST OF CHORD ROA.D':
BANGALORE A 560 086. I'
REPBY ITS DIRECTOR _
NCHANDRASHEKAR. V __ 5 _ RESRONDENIS
{BY SR1 E.S.1NDIRESf-E*.v».V"VH.'C.G_.P. ; FDR R-1. SRI
R.V.JAYAPRAKA.SH.a ADV; I=OR'..«:R+3."~vSRI NANJUNDA REDDY.
Sr.ADv. FOR SR1 ;:ACOR».ADv'.""EOR R-4 AND SR1
G. G.SHAS'I'RL 'AIBV. *RO;R 'IM_R.I;.EAD'ING._ARRI.ICAN'I' W R-2. ;
' ' ' ' H
'IRIS WRIT AVI5P».r{_:jAI:; 'ISyF!I;~ED U/8.4 OF THE KARNATAKA
IIIOII COUR'I*AC'I.i PRAYIAIO<IjO SET' ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN 'I'I~IE; wRIfI* PE'I'I»'I,fI_ON NO. E3622/2005 DATED 16/8/2006.
'V I_'""A=II§E;L.:Iv._I\Iosv.755/20I0 & 756/2oI0 ARE FILED RRAYING
'AAAi}:DI'I'IONAL GROUNDS FOR THE REASONS
S'I'AiIED' 'I'I§I EREI
- . _ IN x;v,A.I\IO..:2:"2o4/2007
I.'I'R?I«: S'I'A"£'E OF KARNATAKA.
.. I ' REVENIIE DEPARTM EZNT.
> 'M.S.BI.DC}.. AMBE3[)KAR VEEDHI.
' '' ''£3ANGALOREjZ A 560 O0}.
REPBY THE REVENUE E-3ECRE'I'ARY.
2.'1m<: DEP{}'IY COIVEMISSIONIER.
BANGAI.-ORE D1511.
DIST. oI<'I«'1C;:«: COMPOUND.
BANGALORE. .. 1XI>PEI,I.A.§\{TIS . V '*-
(BY SRI.S.INI.)lRESI-I. H.C.G.P.}
ARI):-
1.3/I/s.S.B.G.HOUSING PRIVA'I'iF3 1.IM1'1:E3D--,._
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UN-DER 'I'H.E
COMPANIES ACT 1956. HAvING*v--.1jI*$_ . [
RE'GIS'I"ERED OFFICE AT 902. €)'E'""'«A' CROSS"
am MAIN. 7*": CROSS. .
w1~::s*1' OF CHORD ROAD, .. '
BANGALORE ~ 560 086. *
REPBY ITS DIRI%3C'I'OR _
N.CHANE)RASHEI*-ZAR. " . _ .
2.M/s.N.'1'_1.H<ijUs;ING<:c3~;O1?ERAiJ'Iv:+:'
SOCIEZTY
HAVING 1'11';_Rr3:G'1.s'1'Ia:m:::) '«:).'r"=.r§1'<:E. E
AT NO.V5<.GV. P;'\l.f\(f§';._QR{.f_I9fA_RD.S~...,_.._v"
AI>A.mi*MI_2N*1:Nr)_5 1*'; 93"?' M..{\iN, .
em (L'R ('.')SE.~_'.. -- RA')/a.Pa1..A.I'*IAI§ "v:I;;\s' I'3X'I'..
BANGALC)RE ~ 560«.o'8Q;'~.. '
RESP. BY 11:5 sI2c12E'1'*A¥<Y. ' .. RESPONIDIENTS
.{F3Y As§s'1'S. FOR R-1. SR1 R.V.JAYAPRA.KASH.
AI3.m,_F()':'a R-2) V
:!==i<**$*>£<
_ % 'I:~zis;.,m§1"1""A:>PE:A1, IS FILED u/5.4 OF '1'1~:;: KARE\EA'I'AKA
Hlcgiii c:vc){néi;"'TV ACT I-DRAYING '10 SET ASIDE '1'§-«ma: ORDER
V PA53S1:~;Ij",11§V m1: WRI'I' PE'I'I"I"I(i)N NO. 1.57393/2005 DATEIL)
"".:"31/5/200%.
_V V 'I'HI*3SE§ \VRI'I' APPEAEi-S 8: 's\/I1's(:.Ws BEING REZSERVED
» ...ANI) COMING ON FOR I*'RON(){}§\F(3EMEE\s"I' OF JUi)(}M'EN'I" THIS
DAY. SAHHAHIT J.. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
--: 5 :~
W.P.N0.13822/2005 was filed by 11116 appellam:
herein an-'e1'1*in'2_;' that' 1.116: petitioner an ag,{x*i<%1.;l'ti.i1'is1h.
owning 1.05 Acres of land in Sy.N0.66/5.
land in Sy.i\l0.67/4 and 1.9 Acres
Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka::lldh1i.;
Taluk. Bangalore and R."lT._C. en't1fiés werefméide .i3n"1:hé*a
name of the petitioner. l\lati0nal
Technological lnst.itv;¥;jLi§,)n Society
Limited (hereinafter__ the 'S0c:iet.y'],
submitted and distribution
of sitiéshllffio' 111 that respondents
No.1 «2 lat of respondent. No.3 W Society sought: 115111 a(rCii;..isitil'c31a"'llV of lands including the lands bemingiizzg td"-1th:§:_.petitioner in Kodigehalli. The 'l31*€«:li:'ii1vine1i*y""'vNotification under Section 4(1) of the .K:i.1f;1aii,a1f1'ga2_1._ Acquisition Act. [for short' the 'A017 was pAub1is_1fi£edVl'.:'~*in the Karnataka Gazem: dated 41/ 1/ 1985 and "t.lfi1__é,rea1fte1'. the Final Notificaiiion was issued on 2219/1986 under Secrtion 6 of the Act and pr-3i.if.i()ner 7re{:éived the compensation of Rs.95.000/-- in 1*esp<:%(:t of K» --: 6 :- Sy.No.66/5 and 67/4 and has not taken compensat.io1't in respect. of the land bearing Sy.No,68/4 since-"they assured to drop the acquisitiori pro{':eecl.i.t1'gS"'--land possession of the land acquired has beei'2._'ltagke:i (inj 23/9/2001 by respondents No,1"gu'1d. '2l,21nd:AlVtll1.eV .g'a}ne":
has been handed over to responde__nt*.No.3eS;oAei'ety.lVhe' petitioner was under the bOI"'2"i1_.Vfi£l€ in1nr_ess§k1'r.°:iiiat the 3" respondent has t"ormed ."['l;lé'AlFi:'yQ.v1;l'l" and distributed the sites to its members. th::1«tV 'w'.:4ts__lfthe situation, to the surprise 'of_t'l~1e p_etitio'ne'r,.'he'Carine to know from the other lostdthle lands for fOI'II]i1".ig the layout bvly-.59»-i from the owners of the other land, lWh:ic:h.'V'wa's éiequired by the other society.
"ClT1at'-Viillb Aq~retls.Aoi' lanldllilncludiiig the lands acquired from _petit_ie.ner been sold to the 41-" respondent on_ 2i/Ai~.,/a2O_Of3 .vlA§l='l'lhe reason given for the same was that .""'«.__p'etitioner_.has no funds to Complete the formation of _léiyC)u.t_faI1d respondent No.3 has made a fortune at the of the petitioner in using the lands acquired for " "public purpose i.e.. formation of layout as it will not '\/_/fix Since the :31" respondent has not made use of t.he-'"1.e1nd within :3 years frorn the acrquisition and haif1.c_i'4»:=ci"--{)\,%c3'ifl. p()ss<;*ssi()n entitled to get back his lands. A(,%tf61*'dingly, to respoiidents 1 and 2. the p:ftitviQI1é1' i' was filed seeking for the follqwing 1} Issue writjw. uefif Certi.r_)_1*ari'f quashing tbs final"'r1citi-fidition i'r1"~ AQB 82 r;iateri_ :t2'27/ié3i,{1~986 published in._:{grna,ia{:<5*i;:,A;i:e;;:;te datfid'ifieeptfiemibéi in aé'q_Li'iSi--1§i_<211Hie-....l;air1tis of the _peti't~;Qn_€51's 3 consequently u deed dated .21./2/.2VO.O5=_ exécuzed by the 3m ifesptir'i=:i.r:__r1t.»t,o the 4"? respondent. D' 'tint binding.
A ii3'j_P€3rn1it the pet.ii:ioraer to return .R:§.95.000/-
' .« "ir1teres't:
with he COfIip€f1S€i.'Ei()Il for acquired his z"1e(1essary which got as land to the 2"" r€sp0ndent..
\\,,)-
Rs.7.25.40.000/-- by its letter dated 21/12/2005 Va-'s_»per Annexure It is further averrecl that res'ptj'1'1deiiAl' No.3 does not possess required funds to V' layout and to meet the demandsjof't'he_BDA; to mobilize the funds from oth__e'r._ soL1rees' " be(7arneV'--..y unsuccessful. The subjectfoi7:réxi,sir1§ before the General resbondent No.3.
The management of helpless for i1()nwave1il;:>i.bil:iVtVy. funds were absolutely of the layout in the acquired the stringent financial sittiation,-.tlr1«fe decided to seil l0 Acres of lands s<)4"'21s:f to.."rai'sef".adequate funds to meet the "dema.n€dsj~.an-d expenses towards the formation of the ia_ye_L1tfwoi:l{s.ff~.VfI.l1e respondent No.3 had sought for perrriiyssion olfsthe concerned authorities to sell 10 Acres land... Considering the suffering of the members and A }oo--o'i"--..flr1ancial position of the Society, the Department. vdecfded to sell 10 Acres of land and the Govt. had accorded permission to alienate .10 Acres of land and \'?~'"' 'moti\r*aVtioi1s."i' that that sale proceeds should be utilised t:c)w2u'ds payment of BDA and development. of Nagar. The management of respondent h.j2V1d"i'sol'd.:i 10 Acres of land in favour of the"3$3""1*es;;aAon;deiiit_ wVh'i'chV7 was the highest bidder as per t:.e1<1ders ree'e'iVed." It is further averred that part", has been remitted to the ofdthdeifpending layout plan and true 'R43' and 'R--4'. A It is f1j:'rther_b.sife'rred:':'.i:vehe'tvtihegufrit petition is devoid of" merit' aIidr'Ai'.r9i1t/oldtés.4in.._'i1at',ure. It is on account of steep rise in the o'£&'_l'arids and real estate boom is the main reeison to' file the above petition with oblique ".V"fL:f:1it4S additions} objections si,a1:ement. '1fesponc1.eint.Vi\i().3 on 3/10/2007 has averred that ' .r'espoii.dent' No.3--Soeiety was reg_;istered on 23*" March, under the Karnatiaka Co»operatiVe Societies Act, _u"{|_959 with the main object: of E'1('.qtliI'iI1g lands, forming the layout and distributior: of sites to its members. L» -
learned Siiigle Jiidge further held that the 21(rqL1is'--i..tion proceedings made at the request of responder1tWNo;i3~ has' been upheld by this Court in the earlier \.v'i*«ii': ;:;jet.iiior1'5; filed by the land owners and liiieiiicjueflsi-«ion«.é,bio_L1i":VheV"A validiiiy of the sale to be gone i4ii_1,o"by i1":ev.Si;'a"te G'ov'i; V and not by this Court and vie"w_V_o'i7:.éihe'1.#ieit'ter, petitioner is not entitle'::ci..V_gA;o t.neVv'poe,Vsessio.n and accordingly, Being aggrieved by iwrit petitioner has preferred' 1. V Ir: 1*" respondent herein has averrede..{.h.a1yt4 writ,'Ape£i_'tioner is a company registered uridefi-iiythe' proviSi'(>r1ysy_yoi' the Companies Act. 1956 and v"._V1'Ov.yA::re:s_Voi':'iveif1d_ has been sold to it and that tenders were sale of 10 Acres of land by the '.responderi«i. No.3 --» Society and since the tenders by the petitioner at Rs.i0i50 Crores was the same was accepted on 20/1/2005 and _ u'.'K3iel1a has been eritered in the mime of the petitioner and by an order deited 2/8/2006 at the instance of one \J/«ii --: 16 :- order is liable to be quashed and heiice. q{1£lSh(3.d__thC impugned order at AI1I1E'.X1.1I'('3 'I; by allowing "the-fwriit. peiiition.
10. Bein-f a Hrieved bv the saiAd..¥;>rti.er'-. v"2issc§'t:'.. Eiir' the learned Single Judge, \A';A.__i}fo.2"20'?1~,'20():7' by the appellant./Si.afe.
11. We have 1 counsel appearing f'or:..t}1:t?i V ;1ppi:=1ia;m}i 1 480/2006 and the leariied sg-_i:.ii"iid'i"'=:*oLi'15i'ss6:l'=s.ppEraI'ii1g for respondent No.4 E1:i'id"VZV[13E,;:V5. _lea7r§h'edj"»(§ovt,..iiifilvocate appearing for I'€SpOUd(;i'i]f,S4. 1 ~aiid_f2"~~:ifidV~"als() the iearned counsel appearing for fesptiiidemi No.3 and the learned Govt. 'xv.AdV.'-i2ii313.€i~.aI'i--ng ikiriiihis appellant in W.A.N().2204/ 2007 'a.1.1Li_. leariiksd senior (tounsel appearing for resp0.i_1dent:s_ and 2 in the said appeal.
2 AA It may be noted at. this st.age that the "'i':'1,F;E3.:'[Et,(:'.I. was heamf. appli(:at:i0n has bean filed in i ' >u'=Misc:.W.N()s.755/20 lo and 756/2010 in W.A.N0.1_480/2006 S€(;'k.fl'1g for E1II}€l'1dlT1(;'.1"11 in the writ. \',s_/1% petition by raising add1't,io11a_1 grounds as also to aid the additional grounds in the appeal memo in i;11_i:_;. contending that the acquisition is void C1b""£f.'?.iE"iO "~'c:1S "no approval has boon gI'E,1I1{.€d undei' iS<:C..t.i'o11-:'3(.i){2fi}_oi"Vihk? Act and also to contend that 66.5V._A(:ros.T.of"I.ano:
originally sought for aoquiiéfiion ar1cj._ai'so' tooitake the following grounds:-- V "1. The acqui.siiion._ Iand along othe:j'Aia_iic_i;§3 Seéf.' [E] of the Land _§1ai.,__edA;' and Ll¥id<3I' Sec.E€;'_VV.[1--}:__iii»z1t.e.Ef iV9'8'6 A:or1exur6 - E biada. as is' i_aoV';V:i1*io:' approvai of the iflgousingv by the 15' rczspondezii in f§3iif£)Lli' mspoiidem as requii'ed A . undei: 3.1"' f H of the Land Acquisition Act Kthata"vi£--i.23..i.os the very intentions of the §_)i'o.ce edmgs .
2. _ 3"" resp()m:ieni. Soerioiy had originaliy ooxighi for aoqiiisitimi of 66.5 acres of iand oniy i'o£"i'()i'I1:a1i::'or1 of the Layout ilo aiioi, the sites to a:.':'"{,s Iiiombcrs in and around the Kodigehaili and other villages as on 21.10.1982 emd however in COHE.iSiOI1 with the Revenue', ofl'iciaIs, they got. it 1'1o'iii.'ied the iand for acquisition of 322 acres in the pmiiminazy noi.ifiCai'ioi'1 and 210 ac1"€s in the K./** final :1otil'i(*al'i01'1 and ltowevez' gcfi. the awat1*d.~= passed for £71'/.2 acres of land \.xr'ith0u~:_H.' * st.1bn'1it.1i1'1g Ezhe l--imr:-;i1'1g S{'.l1€'l11€ G()\«-'er11n1em and l"zu'nishi:1g the details L"
lviembcrs of the said S0cie1'\_.-' _:;nd._§he I GVVl{"dl:{;1()ll Con1n1it.tec* hEtV€: also sttbtttitigéd ;'t'}"iQ~:' :'e=po1*t' "the? Sotsiety is ll'lCf1ilg'€d in :--3e;1'i_c)t:s it=:je;gtll2t1'ii:i,elS.altd c'1'e£tt.(?cl b()gt.::'a !11CI1'1b('l'S l"lv',()l."'i1' Oll1('.I"'..()lllgil'l{'1l.iV(3vI1$lW and paid sttbstamiztl 2-11'11_Q__tt:'1t__ ink il1€l'2tg,€_IA11'._,:lt() prevails upon U16A._g,GV'€¥I'--ttIIt€It{".,l.O_T'g€f'; the land ac:quired on this gI'Ok;l..Y:1dl {'l.I':1VvE.51v§A.>.:'Illll.lfiCEiilOi'1 Annexure zjequlrté-S'(dill;tf:lc;«t:lt'¢wt§;lted';t society has (Eli-:a1"'ly dd';-tilt. -béfrl)» re l1"l':"'.E{("I'gl:Sl' rat' of Societies. t.l1:l<i:_ f)';'-l;i'liV(V)lIV'"lv€:1"'7-_,S:"l'£'§l'l€3._:l.S'..E1' :§111'1:)lt.1s land zmd not r'eqt1'i;f_c-" fQ1"iwl_té of llhé' Letyout to allot the si1és.1.0 El$.v't11E'1_11b'€':l'S and on the 0tl1<3r hands wémts to !"'€-'£'i$';vC"'___l"%}v'L"'. {L1 ncls to 13031" the cost" of the fr):'t"n:at'i_0"r1._ol'the Layout in rest" of the lands and V , lll"c>zi:_Vt:l.1_;é1t. f)';I?t;;:.;()sc? it had sold the p<3¥:lti()ner's land '"';jo «4l"'9f'j_rt§'Spor1dent" On that g§r()t1r1d also 4"§\l()t.":'l'i<*é.1t.'on rc?qtt1i:'€s to be qtmshed as the-.1 [ ]')<:?t'iI;.iE:)r1<:?1' land c.loe.e; re.q1.1i1*es liar the any housing _ §§{f_?hCl1'1(' of l.1'1L". 3"" 1'esp0:1(le1'11 society and dttqtzisition of the land not for the public: I)l,l.l"1I)OS€'. .
K2» -: 21 :- formation of layout and for distribution of sites to the genuine members of the respondent No.3 W Sc)ciety and contraly to the said object. the land has respondent No.3 in favour of respondent deed dated 21/1/2005 for a saline;5.R5,io;'5o:_::1?or'é's and the said sate could not have?_be'e_n p€lfIfi11ilti'€d Registrar of Cooperative Soe;.et'ies and.perifniss1or1 of the Govt. ought to havebeen furthersubmitted by the learned senior _said sale would go to the roo"t"of-the: the acquisition proCe.edings'5.iioidn¥.as--the very purpose of forming the layout bytheSoci.ety4"fo:r"distribution of the sites to its nienibers is gtyeriil goby and the land owners have been theWSociety as their lands have been .&1('T-lCi't1'xlI"L'Cl"...,m)l{:'Ti.OII1l.I1Etl amount and Society has made wro-ngi{L'1.I gai11 by selling the to respondent. No.4 for Rs._.1.0.50 crores. Learned senior counsel further "'s1,ib'rnitted that the entire acquisition proceedings is void '""as no permission has been obtlained under Section 3(i}[vi) of the Act, wriich is mandatory and in the
--: 23 :m pleaded and proved: but once it proved it vit«i__ates Judgnientis. COl'1ti'a{?tS and all transaeiiions whe1t,ever'f';.. Learned senior counsel also relied u pun :21» bd"eei's_ion of this Court: reported in Case of THE SECRETARY DEPARTMI§NTV" 014* » V "
OTHERS) ILR 1935 KAR 569?:-.,:_
16. On the otl'1erkl1a-n'_ci'.' appearing for respor'1derit«'l\:.lo'_'.-3 lands of the petitioner lands belonging to several Zoliirii igj(ell.:1'_"c1lli_ it been a eq L1 i red . award has has been paid to the land ow"ners} lv_ayou't; has." been formed and sites have J"b.ee;~;_..distribtited members and after obtaining °p.er'rnissi.o'n,_Aii'oIn_'_the Registrar of Co~operative Societies. 10 Aeiessoi' has been sold to respondent No.4 and * «..fj;'V'~.__WOL1Id r1ot_.in any way affect the acquisition proceedings. l,'}L'7Tc1l"I.'_f?.(A'Al counsel ft1I'U"l€l' submitted that the acquisition ""'n.ro(:eedi1"1 is irleludino' the land of the etitioner has _' I' 3'13 been passed at the iristanee of respondent: No.3 and the \\}/S';
order impugned in this writ petition was challenge'-do in the earlier writ petition and the same h.as,lV"'oeen-«V eoniirmed in W. 1137086/95 and the said t has been dismissed.
17. Learned COLil1SE3l'>l;_LalI?'{_.l'IE3I'd earlier decision in W.P337085/_t§S»vandZW;.P."No,2{l§86/99 would operate as res acquisition proceedings it against the petitioner lt§_olidit,ioi1 was not speeii'ica1.lyt, in View of the c:()1'1strL1iei.i\f--e4' explanation 6 to Section 11 of CFC?'t.hle.earli'eif_pfilficeedings of this Court would be b_in3dinlAg LV1p()l'lA 'the_._petitioi1er and no writ petition can
-Laeeirned eoimsel l1,1ri.lier submitted that .""'<(:]rlif3S_T"lOI1VVi)lH delay and laehes would be applicable to the _.=Pt1.bll'(":lI1t(?1'€Si Litigation as per the decision laid down the Horfble Supreme Court in (STATE OF it JKARNATAKA 82, Anr. --Vs.~ ALL INDIA MANUFACTURERS ORGANIZATION 82. Ors.) AIR 2006 SC 1846 and further submitted that the which can be Lifgfid in the appeal slisuld1._E12iVe[fbceenAl. urged in the writ petition perilie_--deeisioz1""ol7.theA' Ho:n"ole Supreme Court reported.'inflcasellioI'"(IiY)l'§iil("ARD.
CONSTRUCTION Co. V T' MANDAL (Regen, 'm*HERs-) AJIR 1986 SC 391 and further petition is liable to be dismissed additional grounds in" ifif;_ei..mfV;jit.V also to amend the liable to be dismissed as there«ls'--no inperiig'in"t._he«.s'aid applications. 19; Leeirnepdv senior counsel appearing for ':espondent..cVl\lio.,4 submitted that respondent No.4 is a bond'_]lI:le.'--V'sjp€;111tchaser and he has participated in the teudler called for sale of 10 Acres of land by respondent A V~:lj'*l\lol.l3--.lar1d since the bid submitted by the 4"': respondent. ' alas the highest bid of Rs.lO.5O crores, the same was accepted and the sale deed has been accepted in favour of I'€SpOl'1d(:'.11t No.4 on 20/1/2005 and the learned U7 -: 27 :-
21. Learne.d senior Counsel further stibmittedthat in similar cases, i~Ion'ble Supreme Court l121s.«ljel,d"tf=..21t'«V such letters. approval. recommendaiiions rnVa_dejv'tol'thief Society and permitting it to £ilc§Adtii'i*el_ the' acquisitiori proceedings itself wO..ul"d._ be its approval as laid down by in SANGHA --Vs.» (SINCE DECEASED) _l2§¢3 (1) sec 228 and the that validity of the the Govt. by an order dated deed has been approved and the reqtiestffor setting aside the acquisition has the W.P.l\los.15607/2008 to El.lfE?.*'p(Tl1diI1g ('.(_)I1SiCl(iI'ati()Y} against the said order~..an,d a.c~er)rding'ly. there is no merit in these writ rv"f~--a"p;)e21is and the same are liable to be dismissed.
22. Learned Gov1;. Advocate argued in support of , 4__'t,l1e% impugzled order passed in W.A.No.1-480/2006 and in favour of the appellant in W.A.l\:*o.2204~/2007 and E'-\J,.+/' "E. 451, submitted that {here is no merit' in W.A.No.l480/V2006 and the same is liable to be dismissed as §Ml1'e,VV'ti~ifdber-« passed by the learned Single Judge ju'::~__t:'ifie'd. "ariicl. approval was granted for acqL1is:Z'€iAc")V1'r'of pr0eeetii.1_1gS"é1s per the <:tommunicat.ion sent, to the Vrespoiiclerit' NOJE$§.,./K V Society, which hzis been the aciclitional stai.eme11t.. I1 flvvvfurther submitted thai ii.'-liable to be allowed by the learned Single Judge was not j per Armexure 'L' to the writ. zp'ei.ii'.i0Vn «'I"5736/2006 and in allowing the w11it..pei.it.ib1t1. ' ~ "h:._1ve given careful consideration to the eoi*:teIit:ioi1sbrged by the learned eourisel appearing for ' Wthe p211"iI.ie5g_2111d seru1.ir1i:r:e.d {he material on record in the ' vl.ig?1i:V bi? the principies laid down in the decisions cited ighe learned counsel appearing for the parties. \v/'X
24. It is Clear fxom the averments made in"*ihe petition as also in the objeet.ior:s stat:ei"nenti...filedL.by"V. respondent i\ios.3 and 4 that the fact. lnand belonging to the petitioriefl tfon1pr_isi::g.V'--_three Sy.Nos.66/5 meastiring 1, Acre. E G[L1.ifit.s§ '6*f/'5 measuring 12 Guntas and ;1a:'asLt_fi1i%:3,: 9 Gunts sit.uat.ed at by issuing Prelimingzry 1985 and t:hereaft.er. on 22/ 9/ 1986 for petitioner along with ;itVV'i{odigeha1li village and t.hereaft:ei*;""passed and petitioner has also bieevn paid <iofnpense1iioi1 towards the land acquired and "poss'ess'ion of the land has been taken on 23'/9-if1.19Q:1".oéI1d"l'i.aI]dE'd over by respondents No.1 and 2 to res cxndeiit l\'zo.i3. The act: uisition tmceedinfs _ A s 4*-pei¢t;;a.i1'1iI1lg'; to the acquisition of land for the scheme of '_'_&e~1ih"eVfeslbonderit No.3 W Society for dist.ribut;ion of sites to members includirig the laincis oi' the petitioiier was ':(',h'c1llf:?Ii1__£_§(;'Cl in W.P.No.37086/95 and eonrieeted mat.t:ers " ..)~«--~5* .
-: 3%
26. It is well settled that any finding' given in Public Interest Litigation petition, which is the public and fresh writ petition would I1'£l7_l'.x same ground and even the cont:e'nt'ions1.wliieli" eou'id* be raised in the said writ petition that l:'ir%?.\/6 noi:_ib"eei'i railsed'--..L also Cannot be raised in as the same is barred V by' Const'1'uletive res judieata as laid down Court in STATE OF 82..A%1liiir,.___V:l.f¥~its-- ALL INDIA & Ors. (ILR 2006 SC Supreme Court has held Section 11 Explariatiori vi pertaining to_VI)oc'iririe of res judicata would also be '*a_pplie'ab'i'e Publie"lni:ei"est. Litigation and judgment in sprVei_¢iou.s:"-litigation would operate as judgment. in rem anAct--~.._bav_rs' subsequent Public Interest. Litigationl on K' ' " -- lPrnincipzle..of resjudicata. 27, It is also well settled that even in .fili11§g, the u"»Pub1ict Interest: I;itigat'i()n pet1'tion. the petitioner is required to be diligent and in laehes or delay on the part \.>~ proceedings. the entire a(?quisiiio1'i p1'(')('¢?edi11gs---.> is vitiated and petitioner is entitled to 1'esi:oratio.11_'<:~f"lar.1d"K and he is ready to deposit. the amount of CO'I¥fJ..p€]:iS?l:ti{}lAl' received by him with reasonable rate oi"in't:.ere'si..__"V '-
28. We have already above Lhai..Va(;-on-is.ition proceedings have been __upheld..in:"'tl"1e=.earliei"w17iL_.f)etition before this Court in also Public Interest: Litigation ;'>'eiit;?:§n_:' '-w"a:>.No.24386/99 disposed of. a-.nd'V_'\».{_herei'ore. it is also il1diSpLll1E:~bl.€'xfl1€1f..;'i;'.f]l€S.$'thé? 'p'e1,.it'§oner is able to prove that respondentil has eomn'1ii,ted fraud. the delay and VlaCil"1esdo3_1 of the petitioner is to be as it.Ai's*-well settled that petitioner having Wat*r;:epi:z;§Civ.,4 n"aequisit.i(')n proccediligs and received eon:pe1'1sai:i'of1,virannot. (%li21llel1'ig.§e acquisition proceedings a~~lapse of 19 years from the date of final "i'1'(;t.ifi("':a7ti()1'i. Unless lie is able to prove that respondent. has ctom.mii:fed a fraud or that the made by ;"resp()1ideni No.3 in favour of respondent: No.4 would vii;iai:.e the acrquisition p1*(:)eeedings and render the same K.» i1'}Valid. What. is c:ont,e1'1cied by the appellant in W.A.No.1480/2006 by the teamed senioif appearing for the appeilanti is that no a2pp'%1f_o\ra:ieV.t1'r1'de.ij1 V' Section 3[fl{Vi] of the Act: was :gfanted'..A£b1:«aeqtzisitioni proceedings and whe1"efo1fe, thr-3 '"e_ntire'V;g'ae'qt;1isi--t.i'onV'a. proceeding is vitiated. already that acquisition pi'oceedin,,gs..V_hasftfieeni:4eti'al_1enged'"betore this Court in W.P.No. 37086 / it/f~.:vi5?'.'.NO.24386/99 and all content'ion's in the said writ petition "in the present writ, appeals." from the perusal of the int.in"iat:i't31i ;'t}a_:e"t;§ove1'r1ment: i.e., letter dated 12/IQ./.1982"iA}hei;ein.} tfie respondent No.3 W Society ."has"*= beTe'n..per1"nitted to initiate the acquisition well settled that no partitrular form of appr--ova1,j' fiieeessary for approx/at of the scheme it s'unbvrnif.ted" by the respondent No.3 --« Society for " _initi'a*;io11 of acquisition proceedings and in View of the letter dated 12/10/1982, it is clear that the same i' can be construed as approvai for initiating acquisition \?~ «: 35 :« proceedings, wherein sanction is accorded to initiate the land acquisit.ion proceedings in favour of the employees of N.T.I. Employees Housing CC)-()p€I'&1E'.iV(3 Society A respondent: No.3 W Society herein under no1*ma.~i~--r§1ies.f'
29. There is merit. in the (:ontention_..n>if_"t:*hVe iearriedj' senior counsel appearing for 1'e£3pon.cie}jr1t'--_i\I'o.3. arid__ the.' learned senior counsel app'ea__ringV"for" res}3»o1'1de'nt No.4 that the said letter dated 22/ aniount to sanction under Sectio:--1._..3[_f)[".V{i) ;ofi'.ti1*:_e» In View of the decision relied .up0r1.~by_fthe-- _i.ee1rn_ed"'[senic)r counsei appeari.ng-- for No.4 reported in case of QRUHA 4' zs(IRii§ANA S SANGHA --
. (SMT) {SINCE DECEASED} BY '£§r9§.--.._A.I\f1):v"v!')::'11E:I.ERS) 2003 (1) sec 223 wherein, ideiitical 'i'e'i:te'r has been considered as sanction for i V ._»i1'1it.iatior1j_ of ac:quisit.ion proceedizogs. "30. Having regard to the fact. that the petitioner '"1*1'as ac:cept,ee:1 the acquisition. reee.ived the compensation towards the iand acquired in the, said aeqtiisitioii \/'*
-136 :~ proeec-?di1'1g;g b€i()l'1gi1'1g._{ to the p(?IiUOl'1€r and 110 COl'1'[{3I1'[iOI1 was raised 1'eg211'di11g sa11et,i011 under f':§_(*,"'f'..'.f_;1'€)I'1 3[f](vi) of the Act} in the order passed in writ ;app'tVf;:.21'__i_i' vz7ai__1uci~. the amendment applieat:i_011 has been iiIe.d--.21t"t.he-..ti;<11e .. hearing of the writ appeal. If, is:.eiejar--.tl1at--- appiicrzuioiis for raising the -E1_.(Ziditi2C.'.1_1EEt1 grc:n;i11ds_eaiirioigui be entertained at this stage aisieveuri othe.m%ise.fixve have held that there is app.r(§vai'__t11:;d.er'wE}ee'tii_Qr1 3(i](vi} of the Act. There is no me1'it~ in the eQr1'iiei_iti'01*i' of the learned senior ttounsel for ijtheiiéifipeileint that this C0urt.:'hs's :e;:i.:r1i011._'i3}hvile passing the order in w.A.N(¢';~2204V/2Q0i?Vr._zdra_féd I/4-/2008 wherein, it is observed there."-xvietiis no approval} of the scheme i"-u&1id*er :E§eCt'imi 3(i](vi) of the Act as the said order was V'J;'A,.?'\Ec).2204/2007 wherein, the question of dis1~n__iss;ivng.t'he acquisition proeeedirlgs did not arise and "W.V"t¥;rther"V.-the said observations made was made by ",'pVéissihg an interim order on 1/4/2008 and having " -reigard to the above said rnateriai on record, we hold that there is no merit in the ecimeiitiori of the Eeamed K» fiw middle me"-in for 2-i(*quiri11g.{ the land on behalf of I'€SpOl'1d€i"l{ No.3 M Society.
34. What is (_'onte.nded byilie' wriI"'pet:vitioI'1e1' appellant in the present ('£189 is tldat (3i7.tohe"'pfo;v5erfyt_i measliring 10 Acres in of"resp<)n'der:t1~~No.~3 -- v S' Society would vitiate the aLf.C{_U.4.Sl':§$Ai»!:io'n_vjproo<:retiing§s. It is clear from the perusalv principles laid down in (:aee'- of CO-
OPERATIV§.3~ KHADER AND that the Horible Sttgarenijg to the fact that an
ag1'eementV"th_'ao':. bee1iAA.'e'1i.t_e'red into between the Society $3'.S:R.(fo'1'1S1..r.1..1ot.ions. held that the only land in S'-_vA1'esVp'o.ct --o_f'wI2ii.e§i1--.M/55.S.R.Cor1s1,1'uct.io11s entered into an e1gi'ee:fie1'1i'Vof éieiie should be the subject matter of the Uc_1Cquisit.io'r;1 arid the Horfble Supreme Court: held that v~;;%><ei9o"i'e«: of power under Sectioii 3[{)(6) of the Act: anti provisions of the Act is vit.iat.ed and it has been :fCle'c1rly held in Pa1'a.8 of the said decision titiat exercise of s1.atut:.ory power under Section 4(1) arid 8(1) of the Act:
;\ I5 2/A V WW ..
is not based on objective conside1'a1:ion.s of'~.._ the materials. on the basis of which the e1ppi'op.I:"iwat'eV Govemment coufd have Formed an c)pi1'1i(3«1"i iri_1a1f' lands oi' the writ, petitioners \v§::i*eV'i'eri_'L1'i1'ed.for._pL1'blie7 purpose and because of that it to" acq'i,1ii=eV the The Hon'bIe Cvotuft.
that. the fact that So(:iVe'ty_"hadi'eoi;ieiied°'i1fito aiiagteement. with the middle man viiéitthouilt: was paid to who was an estate agerii the said estate agent the. amount:
and the possession of the__Iands" of the said estate agent "*4".
had agreement of sale which oi" acquisition and the Horrbie set aside the notification issued under z~4ivf,.i') and 6(1) of the Act as malajide and that it proceedings \---*itiated and restored the land Iand owners but the said decision is not helpful to " "the writ petitioner in the present case in F §\ §;__.-\ x ~...
this Court in the writ appeal. Ir1f"a(tt,. a proeeedin'sg"'-had been initiated before the Government eh2illeV11g;'i:1;§'the"V. sale made by the 3"' respondezii in f21vo:.1r of"i*espio'r2deIii' No.4 and to set aside the ac:quisi:tion"r1:2=:d.e on the respondent No.3 »«-- S»Tr)_(:iety4"--.A2:1'n..d th'e'.i..:I§ri'ncioé11V Secretary to Government, oepg:§i;f§.gW an order dated 11/ of the owners of the land to and to direct hand Being aggrieved iby i\tosV.V'15'6O7- 1561 1 /2008 have been Fi_led[_-and,the'sgiid_ proceeding passed during the pende_n'ey petitions is pending eonsidera_ti()nV a.nd"\}alidity of the sake deed and effect of thevséirneionhi acquisition has to be Considered in the said'-i'__wI9i"t~ iffietitioiis and hence. we do not intend to go V _ into the s'éi1iclv'qi.1esti<)r1 in the present appeal as the same ,__pending c*onsidc*1'ai.i<)zi before this Court in '_'_«n«~W".E5."N'os.15607~156'l 1/2008 wherein, the order passed the Government. which is a Competent authoriiiy.
"about the validity of the same and validity of the --: 44 :- appeal to pass order in accordance with law and accordingiy. we pass the f0ll0wing:~ W.A.No. 1480/2006 is d»ism;i'ss;¥:-d'§ss»._d [j's1;-,~.1f'dciv.%;2j:§ passed by the 1earne':*i_'4--.$§ingisv- W.P.No.13622/2005 dated i_1d6-,*8;v.2o06% is gginfirmed. Misc.W.Nos.'755/20 1 ( _ am ~ K55/2010 in w.A.No.148o/2006 are" 'ci1~sjj;2i_ssj¢:d_: C"%'
- dismissed. The order passed ~. Single Judge in W.P.No. l'573"6_/ 3 I / 5 / 2007 is confirmed. Sd/* JUDGE Sd/* JUDGE ' *mvs