Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Sri Dayananda Pai was very particular that the block of land comprising of 12 acres 34 guntas comprising the following Sy.Nos. 160/1, 160/2, 160/3, 160/4, 163/1, 163/2, 164/1, 164/2, 165/1, 165/2, 165/3, 165/4, 165/6, 166/1, 166/2, 166/3, 166/4, 153, 159, 167 should be released to him as he has got a firm commitment for putting up a Group Housing Scheme on this land."

Yes. He might have had a commitment. What then is the purpose of eminent domain? Eminent domain, as we consider and as it is settled law as was said by Nichols, is an attribute of sovereignty. Where the Deputy Commissioner is convinced that the lands are to be acquired for a public purpose notwithstanding the fact that the rights of the private parties might be interfered with, the acquisition will have to be gone through. In other words, the private purpose must be subservient to public purpose. Forget all that. In order to enable Dayananda Pai to fulfil his commitment if valuable portion of the lands acquired viz., 12 acres 31 guntas is transferred in his favour we cannot find a more vivid case of fraud on power than this. We hold so because the  apparent object as evidenced by Section 4(1) Notification is a public purpose. If really as was sought to be made out by the Resolution dated 13-1-1987 the Tourism Development Corporation was anxious to have these lands and the delay was telling upon it, certainly selling away the lands is not the solution as we could see. Therefore, there has been a clear diversification of purpose. Not only an extent of 12 acres 31 guntas have been sold away in favour of respondent-5 Dayanand Pai as has been noted in the narration of facts, 8 acres had come to be leased for Bangalore International Centre and another 5 acres had come to be leased for the amusement park. Why all these if the Tourism Development Corporation does not have funds to meet the cost of acquisition? Therefore it appears to us this is nothing more than a conspiracy to deprive the owners of the lands by use of the power of the eminent domain which is to be used for an avowedly public purpose and for strong compelling reasons and not whimsically or to satisfy the private needs of an individual."

The cause of action challenging the validity of acquisition arose not after issue of final notification under section 6 but after the alienation of lands in favour of third parties and thus the Corporation in whose favour the lands have been acquired have been deviated. In my opinion the decision rendered in Mrs. Behroze Ramyar Batha is fully applicable to the facts of this case. It is true that acquisition is challenged after quite a long time to final notification. But challenge is not made to the legality of the acquisition. The challenge is to deviation of the purpose for which the land was acquired. That then is the eminent domain was the question posed by the Division Bench and answered in the words of Nichols as an attribute of sovereignty. Acquisition in this case is actuated by malafides. Though lands were acquired for public purpose as declared in 6(1) notification and possession was taken for the said public purpose, agreements were entered into even before possession was taken to part with substantial portion of the land. Where object of providing lands to a private individuals, if acquisition proceedings are reported to or power of eminent domain comes to be exercised, it would nothing more than fraud on power. There it is a case of fraud it would unreveal everything. It cannot be valid in part and invalid in other parts (See Lazarus Estates Ltd. VS. Gurdial Singh - AIR 1980 SC 319: Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab - AIR 1964 SC 73: Narayana Reddy v. State of Karnataka - ILR 1991 KAR. 2248.) Therefore the question of limitation does not arise in such cases. Where the actions are found to be mala fide, courts have not failed to strive down those actions as laid down by the Supreme Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab's case cited supra."

".........................The cause of action challenging the validity of acquisition arose not after issue of final notification under section 6 but after the alienation of lands in favour of third parties and thus the Corporation in whose favour the lands have been acquired have been deviated. In my opinion the decision rendered in Mrs. Behroze Ramyar Batha is fully applicable to the facts of this case. It is true that acquisition is challenged after quite a long time to final notification. But challenge is not made to the legality of the acquisition. The challenge is to deviation of the purpose for which the land was acquired. That then is the eminent domain was the question posed by the Division Bench and answered in the words of Nichols as an attribute of sovereignty. Acquisition in this case is actuated by malafides. Though lands were acquired for public purpose as declared in 6(1) notification and possession was taken for the said public purpose, agreements were entered into even before possession was taken to part with substantial portion of the land. Where object of providing lands to a private individuals, if acquisition proceedings are reported to or power of eminent domain comes to be exercised, it would nothing more than fraud on power. There it is a case of fraud it would unreveal everything. It cannot be valid in part and invalid in other parts (See Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Gurdial Singh - AIR 1980 SC 319: Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab - AIR 1964 SC 73: Narayana Reddy v. State of Karnataka - ILR 1991 Kar. 2248). Therefore the question of limitation does not arise in such cases. Where the actions are found to be mala fide, courts have not failed to strive down those actions as laid down by the Supreme Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab's case cited supra."

26. The pleadings and documents filed by the parties in these cases clearly show that the Corporation had made a false projection to the State Government that land was needed for execution of tourism related projects. In the meeting of officers held on 13.1.1987, i.e. after almost four years of the issue of declaration under Section 6, the Managing Director of the Corporation candidly admitted  that the Corporation did not have the requisite finances to pay for the acquisition of land and that Dayananda Pai, who had already entered into agreements with some of the landowners for purchase of land, was prepared to provide funds subject to certain conditions including transfer of 12 acres 34 guntas land to him for house building project. After 8 months, the Corporation passed resolution for transfer of over 12 acres land to Dayananda Pai. The Corporation also transferred two other parcels of land in favour of Bangalore International Centre and M/s. Universal Resorts Limited. These transactions reveal the true design of the officers of the Corporation, who first succeeded in persuading the State Government to acquire huge chunk of land for a public purpose and then transferred major portion of the acquired land to private individual and corporate entities by citing poor financial health of the Corporation as the cause for doing so. The Courts have repeatedly held that in exercise of its power of eminent domain, the State can compulsorily acquire land of the private persons but this proposition cannot be over-stretched to legitimize a patently illegal and fraudulent exercise undertaken for depriving the landowners of their constitutional right to property with a view to favour private persons. It needs no emphasis that if land is to be acquired for a company, the State Government and the company is bound to comply with the mandate of the provisions contained in Part VII of the Act. Therefore, the Corporation did not have the jurisdiction to  transfer the land acquired for a public purpose to the companies and thereby allow them to bypass the provisions of Part VII. The diversification of the purpose for which land was acquired under Section 4(1) read with Section 6 clearly amounted to a fraud on the power of eminent domain. This is precisely what the High Court has held in the judgment under appeal and we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the same more so because in Annaiah and others v. State of Karnataka and others (supra), the High Court had quashed the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 in their entirety and that judgment has become final.