BAGH AMBERPET WELFARE SOCIETY versus TULSI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 782 · Decided: 17-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

··, ·A 
B 
c 
BAGH AMBERPET WELFARE SOCIETY 
v. 
TULSI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY AND ORS. 
AUGUST 17, 1990 
fRANGANA TII MISRA, M.H. KANIA AND 
M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4, 5 and 6-Acquisition of 
land in which two Societies Claiming interest-Settlement of disputes-
Not forthcoming-Matter remitted to High Court. 
For the purposes of a housing project, some land was acquired by 
way of a notification under the Land Acquisition Act. The Respondent 
Society claiming that it had entered into a contract with the owners for 
purchasing the very property, applied for exemption under the Urban 
Ceiling Act. The exemption prayed for was refused initially, but was 
D granted later. 
Both the Respondent Society and the owners of the said land filed 
Writ Petitions before the High Court for quashing of the acquisition 
proceedings. The acquisition was upheld by Single Judge, but on appeal 
by Respondent Society, the Full Bench held the acquisition proceedings 
E to be inoperative. Against these orders, the appellant Society which had 
entered into an agreement with the Municipal Corporation, and as such 
interested in the acquisition, has preferred the appeals. 
Meanwhile, the State Government withdrew the exemption 
granted under the Urban Ceiling Act. One. of the owners filed a Writ 
F 
Petition before the High Court challenging the withdrawal. The High 
Court took note of the fact that the matters were pending in this Court 
and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal, a 
petition for special leave has been filed. 
The Respondent Society also moved the High Court by way of a 
G 
Writ Petition challenging the withdrawal of exemption, which was 
pending and this Court transferred the same to itself, to be heard with 
the pending cases. 
On 7.8.1985, this Court gave time to Counsel to consider various 
compromise proposals. However, the desired compromise did not come 
H 
through. On 23.8.1988 this Court passed an order holding that the 
782 
•
. --t -
--
\:-__ 
-
.-<_-
WELFARE SOCIETY v. HOUSING SOCIETY 
783 
acquisition proceedings have to be revived. However, no formal dis-
posal was recorded since a settlement was being negotiated. Even after 
about 2 yrs. the settlement did not fructify. 
Remitting the matters to the High Court, 
HELD: I. If the settlement does not fructify, the etrect of the 
decision that the acquisition proceedings are to -revive, would be that 
the claim to the land by Respondent Society would come to an end. In 
that event,_ at the most that Society would only be entitled to such 
compensation as may be awardable in law. If the acquisition proceeds 
the apJ>t:llaot Society and the Municipal Corporation would have to 
workout their mutual rights. Apart from these, the two writ petitions 
challenging the withdrawal of the exemption by order dated 23.6.1983 
would also have to be disposed of on merits. In ·view of the fact that the 
owner's writ petition was dismissed not on merits but on other consi-
derations, the said dismissal should be vacated and that writ petition 
should be beard along with Writ Petition No. 6500 /83 as a common 
question arises for determination. The order of the High Court dated 
13th of June, 1988, is set aside and the High Court is directed to dispose 
of the Writ Petition afresh on merits. [787B-D I 
2. If the High Court is of the opinion that the matter should be 
settled and the entire land of the owners amounting to 18 acres and 3 
gunthas should be divided between the two Societies, it will be free to do 
so if Government also agrees thereto. Since that arrangement would be 
with the consent of the State Government it would in such an event be 
open to the High Court to nullify the acquisition. The observations 
made at different stages during the pendency of the proceedings in this 
Court may not be taken to be expr~ion of opinion on m~rits and the 
High Court would be free to deal with the matter on its own discretion 
and in accordance with law. l787F -GI 
3. In the event of the settlement not coming through, the acquisi-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
tion proceedings would continue under the law and be concluded by the 
Land Acquisition Officer in accordance with law. In the event of the 
acquisition working out, the two writ petitions against the withdrawal 
G 
of exemption would not be sustainable as the land would vest in Govern- . 
ment as a result of acquisition. It would be open to the Government or 
the acqui

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.