LexBANGALORE CITY COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012) 3 S.C.R. 295 BANGALORE CITY COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY A LTD. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal Nos. 7425-7426 of 2002) FEBRUARY 02, 2012 B [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: c ss. 4, 6 and 3(f)(vi) - Acquisition of land for public purpose ...... for appellant-Co-operative Housing Society - Agreement entered into between the Housing Society and the State Government - Issuance of notification u/s. 4(1) and 6 - Passing of award - Quashing of acquisition of land by the D High Court on the ground that it was vitiated due to violation of the provisions of the Act and the manipulation done by Housing Society through Estate Agent while acquiring the land - On appeal, held: Agreement entered into between the Housing Society and the State Government did not contain E any inkling about the housing scheme framed by the Housing Society - It merely mentioned about the proposed formation of sites and construction of houses for the members of the Housing Society and payment of cost for the acquired land - Housing Society did not frame any housing scheme and did F not obtain approval by the State Government before the issuance of notification uls. 4(1) - No material produced before the High Court or Supreme Court to show that a scheme had been framed and approved by the State Government - Thus, the High Court rightly held that in the absence of housing scheme framed by the housing society, G acquisition of land belonging to the land owner was not for public purpose as defined in s. 3(f)(vi) - Housing society executed agreement with the Estate Agent for facilitating the acquisition of land in lieu of payment of more than rupees five 295 H 296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. A crores - Said amount was charged by Estate Agent.for manipulating the State Apparatus for facilitating the acquisition of land and sanction of layout etc. without any obstruction - Thus, such agreement is violative of s. 23 of the 1872 Act - However, the member of the society who had B already constructed their houses on the land allotted to them allowed to negotiate with. the State for purchase of their land at the prevailing market price to the rightful land owners - Contract Act, 1872. C ss. 3(f), 3(f)(vi) - Expression 'public purpose' - Meaning and scope of - Held: Expression 'public purpose' contained in s. 3(f) is inclusive - Acquisition of land for carrying out any education, housing, health or slum clearance scheme by a .. registered society or a Co-operative society can be regarded as an acquisition for public purpose only if the Scheme has D been approved by the appropriate Government before initiation of the acquisition proceedings - In case acquisition of land is for any purpose other than public purpose as defined in s. 3(f), then provisions of Part VII would be attracted E and mandate thereof would have to be complied with. ss. 3(f)(vi), 41 - Acquisition of land for public purpose - Housing scheme of Co-operative housing society - Agreement signed by the State Government with the co- operative society - Nominal contribution of Rs. 1001- by the F Special Deputy Commissioner - Held: The nominal contribution cannot be construed as State Government's implicit approval of the housing scheme which had never been prepared. s. 5A - Opportunity of hearing under - Finding by G Division Bench of High Court that land owner not given opportunity of hearing - Correctness of - Held: Land owner was given opportunity of hearing as her son appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer along with his· advocate - Said error not sufficient to nullify the conclusion by the H Division Bench of the High Court that land acquisition was not BANGALORE CITY COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 297 v. STATE OF KARNATAKA for a public purpose and the exercise undertaken by the State A Government was vitiated due to the influence of the extraneous considerations. Mysore High Court Act, 1884 - ss. 17, 18 and 19 - Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 - ss. 4, 9 and 10 - Writ 8 appeal - Jurisdiction of High Court - Division Bench sustaining the order of Single Judge on a new ground by relying upon the Supreme Court's decision - Challenge to, on the ground that the Division Bench did not have the jurisdiction to decide the appeal relying upon the Supreme C Court's judgment because that ground was not taken by the Single Judge and should hav
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.