Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The State Government also filed its counter contending that the writ petition is neither maintainable in law nor in facts. It is submitted that 4(1) notification has been issued in accordance with law. Therefore 6(1) notification is in accordance with law and award has been passed in time, possession of the land has been taken which is evident by Section 16(2) notification and therefore, they have sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.

10. The learned Single Judge who heard this matter held that from the findings of GVK Rao's report and the admission of the then Secretary of the 4th respondent- Society, it is manifest that the 4th respondent-Society indulged in misrepresentation, fraud etc., The Government while giving approval for acquisition of land belonging to the petitioners and others committed an error in not considering the findings of GVK Rao's report. There is non-application of mind while granting approval. The alleged approval if any is arbitrary and contrary to law declared by the Supreme Court in HMTs case. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings is vitiated by fraud and colourable exercise of power. He also held that, acquisition proceedings has lapsed, as award was not passed within the stipulated period. Therefore, Section 11(A) of the Act is attracted. On the question of delay, he held that the writ petition filed by the other land owners are dismissed on the ground of delay. The present petitioners are not parties to the said proceedings. In view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in HMT's case as well as in Vyalikaval House Building Co- operative Society's case, the delay would not come in the way of his entertaining the writ petition. Therefore, there is no legal impediment for the petitioners to approach the Court questioning the acquisition proceedings. Then relying on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Societies case, allowed the writ petition quashing the entire acquisition proceedings and directed the respondents to restore possession of the land to the land owners with a condition that the Land owners should refund the amount of compensation received by them. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the 4th respondent/Society is before this Court.

23. In the entire order of the learned Single Judge there is no plea of fraud, misrepresentation and colourable exercise of power in the portion where the facts are set out. Even the ground urged by the petitioners in the writ petitions are not set out. There is no reference to the statement of objections filed by the respondents and the contentions raised by them. Thereafter the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners are set out. Their contention is that the award passed is contrary to Section 11(A) of the Act. The acquisition is for a Housing Society and therefore, Chapters 7 and 8 of the Act are applicable and Sections 40 and 41 are attracted and the procedure prescribed under the said provisions is not followed, the acquisition is bad. The fourth respondent society is corrupted and black listed in G.V.K Rao committee report and therefore, the entire acquisition is bad in law. The impugned acquisition proceedings are vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation and colourable exercise of power. Then we have the arguments of the learned counsel for the Society, who contended that it is barred by time. Further, the writ petitions filed challenging the acquisition proceedings are all dismissed. There are number of Division Bench judgments on this point and therefore, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

24. It is thereafter, the learned Judge has proceeded to consider the rival contentions. He relies on the judgment of the Apex court in HMT HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY Vs. SYED KHADER reported in AIR 1995 SC 2244. Thereafter, he has extracted a portion of the judgment of the said case. Then he has extracted the statement of one Vijay Singh which is found in G.V.K.Rao Committee report. It is from these two pieces of material, he has come to the conclusion that the Society has indulged in misrepresentation, fraud etc., which vitiates acquisition proceedings.

1.Firstly this is not a case where there was no scheme or no prior approval. This is a case where according to him, prior approval is not in accordance with law. Secondly, the question of Government looking into the G.V.K Rao Committee report while granting approval to the scheme would not arise for the simple reason, GVK Rao committee was constituted after the initiation of the acquisition proceedings in this case. In fact, the specific case pleaded by the petitioners is that the final notification came to be issued even before receiving the report/recommendations of G.V.K. Rao Committee. 2.The aforesaid observations show that there is a scheme and an approval, which is not legal. There is no factual finding of fraud recorded after pointing out the irregularities or illegalities. However, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the judgment rendered in HMT's case is applicable and a case of fraud, misrepresentation is made out without referring to any legal evidence placed on record.3.Therefore, ex facie the said reasoning cannot stand.