LexR. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS. versus TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 763
R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS.
v.
TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND
ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9091-9119of2016)
·SEPTEMBER 15, 2016
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
ss.3(j)(vi),4(1),5-A,6(1), 39 r/w. s.41 - Hiring iniddleman for
acquisition of lands from State Government - Respondent-
cooperative society entered into agreement with agency to get lands
acquired in its favour from State Government for formation of house
sites - Proprietor of agency was required to act as a middle man
between the State Government and respondent-cooperative society
- State Government issued impugned notification ulss. 4(1) and 6(1)
for acquisition of lands for formation of house sites by respondent-
cooperative society. stating it to be for 'public purpose' uls.3(j)(vi)
- Held: Acquisition proceedings in the instant case cannot be said
to be one for 'public purpose' as defined uls.3(j)(vi), especially in
light of the fact that not only was there no scheme formulated by the
respondent-cooperative society and approved by the State
Government for the said purpose before initiating the acquisition
proceedings, but evidence clearly indicated that the respondent-
cooperative society paid consideration to agency to act as the agent
between it and the State Government, to ensure that the lands of the
original land owners are acquired in its favour - Hiring middlemen
to get lands of poor agricultural workers acquired by the State
Government in favour of Cooperative Society is abhorrent and
cannot be granted the sanction of law - Thus, impugned notifications
issued u/s.4(1) and s.6(1) suffer from not only legal mala tides but
also legal malice, which amounts to colourable exercise of power
by the State Government and therefore, the same are liable to be
quashed - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and re-settlement Act, 2013 - s.24(l){a}
- General Clauses Act, 1897-s.6.
763
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
764
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 4 S.C.R.
Transfer of property -During pendency of court proceedings
-Notification issued by State Government u/s. 4(1) and 6(1) of the
Act for acquisition of lands for formation of house sites by
respondent-cooperative society - Challenged by some land owners
by filing writ petition - Meanwhile, land in question transferred by
land owners - Propriety - Held: Lands in question having been
transferred by the land owners during pendency of the writ
proceedings, they were wholly illegal and void ab initio in law - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss.4(1) & 6(1).
Transfer of property - Fraudulent transfer - Hiring middleman
for acquisition of lands from State Government - Notification issued
by State Government uls. 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act for acquisition of
lands for formation of house sites by respondent-cooperative society
- Challenged by some land owners by filing writ petition which was
allowed - Within a span of few days thereafter from date of passing
the judgment, the middleman executed sale deeds in respect of the
lands in question in favour of his son, daughter and son-in-law -
Held: Middleman played fraud on the land owners and the
respondent-cooperative society by executing the sale deeds -
Execution of the sale deeds was void ab initio in law - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss.4(1) & 6(1).
Administrative Law:
Eminent domain power of the State - Malafide exercise of power
- Violation of provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by the State -
Held: The State exercised its eminent domain power of acquisition
by acquiring lands of poor agricultural workers at the instance of
a middleman, which amounted to malafide exercise of power - State
has blatantly violated the provisions of the Act and law laid down
by the Supreme Court.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. On perusal of the conditions incorporated in the
agreement it was clear that agency, Mis Srinivasa Enterprises,
represented by its proprietor Mr. S. Rangarajan, had agreed to
undertake the responsibility to get the lands mentioned therein
acquired in favour of the respondent-society from the State
Government and prepare a Layout Plan as per the regulations of
the Bangalore Development Authority ("BDA") and Town
R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS. v. TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.
Planning Authority, and to get the plan sanctioned by BDA in
favourExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.