M/S. VINAYAK HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVESOCIETY LTD. versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 243 · Decided: 26-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
243
M/S. VINAYAK HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD.
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3600 of 2011)
AUGUST 26, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4(1), 6(1) and 48 –
Withdrawal notification of the acquired land – State Government
acquired 78 acres 16 guntas of land for public purpose – The State
executed an agreement of the said land in favour of the appellant-
cooperative society which included survey no.30 measuring 5 acres
33 guntas – Respondent no.3 claimed to be the owner of the survey
no.30 – Before the acquisition proceedings, respondent no.3 had
sold a certain portions of land to a third party – Thereafter,
respondent no.3 filed writ petition questioning the acquisition and
later filed another writ petition questioning the award determining
the market value of the land – Both writ petitions were dismissed by
the High Court – Out of the total 5 acres 33 guntas, 2 acres 36
guntas of land was handed over to the appellant by the State –
Respondent no.3 sought de-notification of the remaining 3 acres 5
guntas i.e. the disputed property in survey no.30 – Inspite of dismissal
of writ petitions rejecting the challenge made by the respondent
no.3, the State Government issued a withdrawal notification u/s. 48
of the Act in respect of the disputed property, even without affording
an opportunity of being heard to the appellant – Aggrieved,
appellant filed writ petition before the High Court, which was
dismissed – Writ appeal was also dismissed – On appeal, held: It is
clear that sub-section (1) of s.48 of the L.A. Act empowers the
government to withdraw from acquisition proceedings of the land
of which possession has not taken place – In the instant case, the
State had acquired 78 acres 16 guntas of land in favour of appellant
including the land in survey no.30 and possession was also taken
except the disputed land to an extent of 3 acres 5 guntas in survey
no.30 – Further, the lands were notified for public purposes – The
approved layout plan was issued by the government in compliance
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 1
243
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 243
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
with the provisions of the BDA Act and the planning Act – The
disputed property was within the layout – Materials on record also
made clear that the disputed property was earmarked as civic
amenity – If the order of the de-notification is allowed to stand, the
very object of the planned development of the layout would be lost
– Thus, order of de-notification passed by the State was without
application of mind and was arbitrary in nature – Further,
respondent no.3 had already sold 1/3rd of the 3 acres 5 guntas of
land in survey no.30, so she could not have maintained the
application for de-notification of the said portion of the land as
she had no subsisting interest in the said land – Karnataka Town
and Country Planning Act, 1961 – Bangalore Development Act,
1976.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.48 – Purpose of – Held: A
combined reading of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of s.48 of
the L.A. Act makes it clear that the purpose of s.48 was mainly to
ensure that the State Government is not compelled to acquire the
land when the acquisition ceases to be beneficial for the intended
purpose – That is why, sub-section (2) of s.48 provides for payment
of compensation to the owner, whose land was notified for
acquisition but not acquired for the reason that such an acquisition
is against the public interest and public revenue.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.48 – Precautions under – Held:
The government should refrain from de-notifying or dropping any
land being acquired for the formation of a layout, u/s.48 of the L.A
Act or under any other law – The courts should also be very strict
while considering the plea of the landowners seeking de-notification
of the lands which are being acquired or quashing of the notification
on the ground of lapsing of the scheme or on any other grounds in
respect of the acquired lands for the formation of the layout – It
has to be kept in mind that private interest always stands
subordinated to the public good.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is clear that sub-section (1) of Section 48 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 empowers the government to
withdraw from acquisition proceedings of the land of which
possession has not been taken.  It is further provided that when
the government withdraws from acquisi

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