THE VYALIKAVAL HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY BY ITS SECRETARY versus V.CHANDRAPPA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 277 · Decided: 02-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

)'
·-
THE VY ALIKA VAL HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY BY ITS
A
SECREfARY
v.
V.CHANDRAPPA AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 2, 2007
B
[G.P. MATHURANDA.K. MATHUR,JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
ss. 4, 5-A and 6-Notification acquiring lands-Challenge to resisted c
on ground of delay and acquiescence-Acquisition of some of the lands
quashed being actuated with malafide and fraud-Notification held to be
void-Other land owners filing writ petition after 14 years challenging the
Notification on the basis of the said judgment-Division Bench of High
Court quashing acquisition proceedings-Held, when acquisition has been D
found to be totally mala fide and not for bona fide purpose, grounds of delay
'
and acquiescence have no substance-View taken by Division Bench of
High Court upheld-Delay/Laches-Acquiescence-Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226.
Certain lands of the respondents were acquired along with that of other
E
landowners under a Notification issued on 22.12.1984 under s. 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. After the declaration under s. 6 and the award having
been passed, possession of the lands was taken on different dates upto the
year 1992. The respondent landowners filed writ petitions before the High
. ~.-
Court challenging the notification and the award on the ground, inter alia,
F
that the notification in question had been adversely commented by the High
Court in the case of Narayana Reddy v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1991 Kar.
2248, holding that the whole acquisition proceedings stood vitiated on account
of fraud and the appellant Society was found to be not bona fide Housing
Society. It was further stated that the delay in filing the writ petition was
irrelevant since the very same notification under which other lands were G
acquired along with the land of the writ petitioners was found to be void. The
11
appellant-Society contested the writ petitions as barred by time being delayed
~ i
by 14 years. It was also submitted that the writ petitioners having participated
in the inquiry under s. 5-A of the Act and having received substantial amount
277
H
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 2 S.C.R.
A from the Society were precluded from challenging the proceedings. The
Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, but the Division
Bench allowed the writ appeal cif the land owners on the basis of decision in
another writ appeal wherein the entire acquisition proceedings on behalf of
the appellant-Society were held to have been actuated by fraud. It was held
B that the acquisition was colourable exercise of power and therefore, delay could
·not be a good ground to dismiss the writ petitions. Aggrieved the Society filed
the appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. When the acquisition has been found to be totally ma la fide
C and not for bona fide purpose, the grounds of delay and acquiescence in the
instant case have no substance. Issuance of the Notification was malafide
and it was not for public purpose, as has been observed by this Court; and,
therefore, nothing turns on the question of delay and acquiescence. When
acquisition stands vitiated on account of mala fide, nothing remains further.
D
[Para 5) (284-F; 285-A)
HM T. House Building Co-operative Society v. Syed Khader & Ors.,
(1995) 2 SCC 677 and H.M T. House Building Co-operative Society v.
M Venkatswamappa & Ors. etc. etc., (1995) 3 SCC 128, relied on.
E
1.2. It may be that the appellant might have tried to settle out the
acquisition but when the whole acquisition emanates from the tainted
notification 11ny settlement on the basis of that notification cannot be validated.
The fact remains that when the basic notification under which the present
land is sought to be acquired stood vitiated then whatever money that the
appellant has paid, is at its own risk. Once the notification goes no benefit
F could be der.ived by the appellant. (Para 6) (284-G; 285-A)
Narayana Reddy v. State of Karnataka, ILR (1991) Kar. 2248, referred
to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2086-2087 of
G 2004.
H
From Final Judgments and Orders dated 17-1-2000 and 22-3-2002 of High
Court of Karnat1ka at Banglore in Writ Appeal No. 2294/1999 and R.P. No.
156/2000 in Writ Appeal No. 2294/1999 respectively.
...
Ir
y,
VY ALIKA VALHOUS EBUILDlNGCO-OP.SOC!ffi' BY ITS SECRET ARY r. V.CHANDRA.PPA IA.K. MA TIRTR.lj
279
S.N. Bhat and Bhagabati Prasad Padhy for the Appellant.
A
~.,,
V.A

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