Dismissed

Sri.H.Seetharamaiah v. the Principal Secretary

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2021WA/504/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowners challenged acquisition for a housing cooperative society on grounds including fraud and subsequent private sale. The court dismissed their appeals, holding the challenges barred by res judicata, constructive res judicata and unexplained delay. It affirmed suppression findings and held that the subsequent sale did not vitiate the acquisition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri.H.Seetharamaiah Vs the Principal Secretary — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶9

W.A. No.17016/2011 (LA-RES) IN

¶10

W.P. Nos.16289-16298/2008 (LA-RES)

¶11

C/W

¶12

W.A.No.16566 OF 2011 (LA-RES)

¶13

¶14

W.P.Nos.15607-611/2008 (LA-RES),

¶15

W.A.No.23/2012 (LA-RES)

¶16

¶17

W.P.Nos.15607-611/2008 (LA-RES),

¶18

W.A. No.504 OF 2012 (LA-RES) IN W.P. Nos.16238/2009 & 17107-110/2009 (LA-RES),

¶19

W.A.No.2514 OF 2013 (LA-RES) IN

¶20

W.P.Nos.1999-2002 & 2004-2032/2010 (LA-RES),

¶21

W.A.No.2941 OF 2013 (LA-RES)

¶22

¶23

W.P.No.16797/2011 (LA-RES),

¶24

W.A.No.4317 OF 2013 (LA-RES) IN

¶25

W.P.No.3292/2012 (LA-RES),

¶26

¶27

W.A.No.5630 OF 2013 (LA-RES) IN

¶28

W.P.Nos.2976-80/2011 (LA-RES)

¶29

W.A. No.17016 OF 2011 IN W.P. Nos.16289-16298/2008

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

SRI. N. RAMARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.

¶32

SMT. S. RADHAMMA D/O LATE R. SRINIVASAIAH DEAD BY HER LR'S.

¶33

2(1) SRI. N. KARIYAPPA GOWDA S/O LATE N. NARAYANAPPA (HUSBAND OF DECEASED RADHAMMA - 2ND APPELLANT HEREIN) AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶34

2(2) SMT. K. SAHANA D/O SRI N. KARIYAPPA GOWDA & LATE RADHAMMA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

¶35

2(3) SRI. K.M. SAGAR S/O SRI N. KARIYAPPA GOWDA & LATE RADHAMMA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶36

ALL ARE R/O NO.40 CQUAL LAYOUT, SAHAKARANAGARA POST BANGALORE.

¶37

SMT. G .LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶38

¶39

SRI. M. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE MUNIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶40

SRI. B. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶41

SMT. RATHNAMMA L R W/O LATE K S SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶42

SRI. L. ASHWATHANARAYAN S/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶43

SRI. SRINIVASA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶44

SRI. G. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS.

¶45

SRI. P. JAYARAM S/O LATE PUTTANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶46

1 TO 10 ARE R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKARANAGARA POST BANGALORE.

¶47

... APPELLANTS

¶48

(BY MR. G.S. BALAGANGADHAR, ADV., FOR APPELLANT AND ALSO FOR LR'S OF A2)

¶49

AND:

¶50

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶51

¶52

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE.

¶53

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT DISTRICT OFFICE COMPOUND, BANGALORE.

¶54

N.T.I. HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO G 5, PALACE ORCHARDS APARTMENTS NO.51, 6TH A CROSS, 9TH MAIN RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE.

¶55

RAJIV GANDHI NAGARA LAYOUT ALLOTTEES' WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD) NO.3, GANESH KRUPA, 3RD MAIN 2ND CROSS, ASHEERWAD COLONY ANJANAPPA LAYOUT HORAMAVU, BANASWADI BANGALORE 560 043 REP BY ITS SECRETARY 560043.

¶56

... RESPONDENTS

¶57

(BY MR. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 MR. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. R.V. JAYAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4 AND R5)

¶58

¶59

THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.16289-16298/2008 DATED 4/5.7.2011.

¶60

W.A. NO.16566 OF 2011 IN W.P. Nos.15607-611/2008

¶61

BETWEEN:

¶62

SRI. A. JAYARAM S/O LATE ANNAIAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/AT 'C' BLOCK

¶63

¶64

SAHAKARANAGAR, KODIGEHALLI SILICON VALLEY SCHOOL, BANGALORE 92.

¶65

SMT. VISHALAMMA W/O LATE V. JAGADISH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/AT NO.25 17TH CROSS, SAMPANGI MAIN ROAD MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560003.

¶66

SRI. B N VASUDEVAMURTHY S/O SRI. B.M. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEAS OCC:AGRICULTURE R/AT NEAR DODDAMMA MAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD BYATARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE 92. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 6.10.2009)

¶67

SRI. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURE R/AT NEAR DODDAMMA MAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD BYATARAYANAPUARA, BANGALORE-92.

¶68

SRI. S. NARAYANASWAMY S/O SRI. SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURE R/AT 'C' BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR KODIGEHALLI, SILICON VALLEY SCHOOL BANGALORE 92.

¶69

... APPELLANTS

¶70

(BY MR. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. K.S. CHANDRAHASA, ADV., FOR A3 TO R5 MR. G.B. ESWARAPPA, ADV., FOR A1 & A2)

¶71

¶72

AND:

¶73

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 1.

¶74

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶75

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER III FLOOR, V.V. TOWER, BANGALORE.

¶76

M/S NTI EMPLOYEES' HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., LATER RENAMED AS NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY LTD., G-5, PALACE ORACHRDS APARTMENTS NO.51, 9TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS R.M.V. EXTENSION, BANGALOER-90

¶77

H. NARAYANA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE.

¶78

M/S. ANTEVORTA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, NO.514, DALAMAL TOWER NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021. ALSO HAVING ITS REGIONAL CORRESPONDENCE OFFICE AT 757/B, 2ND STAGE HAL, 100 FT. ROAD REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. CHETHAN B.S.

¶79

... RESPONDENTS

¶80

¶81

(BY MR. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3

¶82

MR. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. B.N. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4 MR. MADHU NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR

¶83

MR. BADRI VISHAL, ADV., R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶84

¶85

THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.15607-611/2008 DATED 4/5-7.2011.

¶86

W.A.No.23/2012 IN W.P.Nos.15607-611/2008

¶87

BETWEEN:

¶88

H. NARAYANA S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560064.

¶89

... APPELLANT

¶90

(BY MR. JANARDHANA G, ADV.,)

¶91

AND:

¶92

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 1.

¶93

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE560002.

¶94

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER III FLOOR, V.V. TOWER BANGALORE-560001.

¶95

M/S. NTI EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY LTD., ( NAME CHANGED TO NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL

¶96

¶97

INSTITUTE HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY LTD.,) G-5, PALACE ORCHARDS APARTMENTS NO.51, 9TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS R.M.V. EXTENSION, BANGALOER-90 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶98

SRI. A. JAYARAM S/O LATE ANNAIAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT. 'C' BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR KODIGEHALLI SILICON VALLEY SCHOOL BANGALORE-92.

¶99

SMT. VISHALAMMA W/O LATE V. JAGADISH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT. NO.25, 17TH CROSS SAMPIGE MAIN ROAD MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-01.

¶100

SRI. B.N. VASUDEVAMURTHY S/O B.M.NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT. DODDAMMA MAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA BANGALORE-92.

¶101

SRI. BASAVARAJU S/O ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT. DODDAMMA MAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA BANGALORE-92.

¶102

SRI. S. NARAYANASWAMY S/O SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT. 'C' BLOCK SAHAKARANAGAR, KODIGEHALLI SILICON VALLEY SCHOOL BANGALORE-92.

¶103

¶104

... RESPONDENTS

¶105

(BY MR. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 MR. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. K.S. CHANDRAHASA, ADV., FOR R9 MR. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. R.V. JAYAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4 R5, R6, R7 AND R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶106

¶107

THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.15607-15611/2008 DATED 4/5.7.2011

¶108

W.A. No.504 OF 2012 IN W.P. Nos.16238/2009 & 17107-110/2009

¶109

BETWEEN:

¶110

SRI. H. SEETHARAMAIAH S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O. KODIGEHALLY VILLAGE BANGALORE.

¶111

SMT. NARASAMMA D/O PAPAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 092.

¶112

SMT. PREMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O NO.292, 7TH CROSS 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 011.

¶113

SRI. RAMANJANEPPA S/O LATE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE

¶114

¶115

SAHAKARNAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 092.

¶116

SRI. S. PAPANNA S/O LATE SONAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O KODIGEHALLI SAHAKARNAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 092.

¶117

SRI. RAMANNA @ RAMAIAH S/O KURI BUJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O KODIGEHALLI SAHAKARNAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 092.

¶118

SRI. G. NARASAIAH S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YERAS R/O KODIGEHALLI SAHAKARNAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 092.

¶119

SRI. NANJUNDAPPA SINCE DEAD REP. BY LR 8(a) SRI. VASANTHAPPA S/O N. NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O NO.494, GANGA BHAVANI ROAD KODIGEHALLI, SAHAKARNAGAR POST BANGALORE-92.

¶120

(AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.6.2019)

¶121

SMT. SAKAMMA W/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS R/O KODIGEHALLI SAHAKARNAGAR BANGALORE-560 092.

¶122

... APPELLANTS

¶123

¶124

(BY MR. G.S. BALAGANGADHAR, ADV.,)

¶125

AND:

¶126

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPT., GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶127

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY K P WEST, BANGALORE.

¶128

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT DISTRICT OFFICE COMPOUND BANGALORE-560001.

¶129

N.T.I. HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO.G-5, PALACE ORCHARDS APARTMENTS NO.51, 6TH A CROSS, 9TH MAIN RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560020.

¶130

RAJIV GANDHI NAGARA LAYOUT ALLOTTEES' WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD) NO.3, GANESHA KRUPA, III MAIN II CROSS, ASHEERWAD COLONY ANJANAPPA LAYOUT HORAMAVU, BANASAWADI BANGALORE - 560043 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶131

SRI. SOMAKESHAVA M S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.141/2, KODIGEHALLI SAHAKARANAGARA POST BANGALORE 560 092.

¶132

... RESPONDENTS

¶133

(BY MR. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 MR. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. B.N. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4

¶134

¶135

MR. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. R.V. JAYAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R5 V/O DTD:4.9.2014 APPEAL ABATED AGAINST R6)

¶136

¶137

THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.16238/2009 & 17106-110/2009, DATED 4/5.7.2011.

¶138

W.A.No.2514 OF 2013 IN

¶139

W.P.Nos.1999-2002 & 2004-2032/2010

¶140

BETWEEN:

¶141

SMT. NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O RAMAIAH R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶142

SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶143

SRI. V. RAMU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶144

SMT. RENUKAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O LATE R. NARAYANAPPA R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE

¶145

¶146

SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶147

SMT. SIDDAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/O NANJAPPA R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶148

SMT. NAGARATNAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE YASHODAMMA R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶149

SRI. MUNIRAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE BACHAPPA R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶150

SMT. MUNIMARAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS W/O ANDANAPPA R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶151

SRI. LAXHMAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIHANUMAPPA R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶152

¶153

SMT. MUNITAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O LATE ANJANAPPA R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶154

SRI. GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶155

SRI. ANIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶156

SRI. V. SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶157

SRI. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIHUCHAPPA R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶158

¶159

SRI. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶160

SMT. NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS W/O LATE NANJAPPA R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶161

SMT. RATNAMMA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS W/O LATE MARAPPA R/O KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST BANGALORE 560092.

¶162

SRI. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS S/O LATE THIMMAPPA R/O BYATARAYANAPURA SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶163

SRI. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE THIMMAPPA R/O BYATARAYANAPURA SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶164

SMT. KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O LATE MADHU R/O BYATARAYANAPURA

¶165

¶166

SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶167

SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O B M ANJANAPPA R/O BYATARAYANAPURA SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶168

SRI. PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O LATE CHICKMUNI R/O BYATARAYANAPURA SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶169

SRI. B S SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE SUBRAYAPPA R/O BYATARAYANAPURA SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶170

SRI. RAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA R/O BYATARAYANAPURA SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶171

SRI. GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA R/O BYATARAYANAPURA SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶172

¶173

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS W/O LATE CHANDRAPPA R/O KOTHIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶174

SRI. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O LATE BAIYANAPPA R/O KOTHIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶175

SRI. DODDANARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS S/O OBALAPPA R/O KOTHIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶176

SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA R/O KOTHIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶177

SRI. MUNIRAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE BACHAPPA R/O KOTHIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶178

SRI. H. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶179

¶180

S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA R/O KOTHIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶181

SRI. GIRIRAJ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA R/O KOTHIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKAR NAGAR POST YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE 560092.

¶182

SMT. PREMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS W/O LATE B N KRISHNAPPA R/O NO.292, 1ST BLCOK 7TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE 560011.

¶183

APPELLANTS NOS.1 TO 33 ARE PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY THEIR SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. SUDHAKAR SHENOY S/O LATE B H SHENOY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ADDRESS: NO.123/17, KANKANADI BISHOP VICTOR ROAD MANGALORE 2.

¶184

... APPELLANTS

¶185

(BY MR. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. VENKATESH P. DALAWAI, ADV.,)

¶186

AND:

¶187

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 THROUGH ITS PRINCIAPAL SECRETARY.

¶188

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT

¶189

¶190

K G ROAD BANGALORE-560009.

¶191

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER III FLOOR, V V TOWER DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560001.

¶192

NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTIONS (NTI) HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY LTD G-5, PALACE ORCHARDS APARTMENTS, NO.51 9TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560090 THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.

¶193

... RESPONDENTS

¶194

(BY MR. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 MR. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. B.N. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4)

¶195

¶196

THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.1999-2002/2010 & 2004-2032/2010 DATED 6.3.2013.

¶197

W.A. NO.2941 OF 2013 IN W.P. No.16797/2011

¶198

BETWEEN:

¶199

SMT. RAMAKKA W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 097.

¶200

... APPELLANT

¶201

(BY MR. G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADV.,)

¶202

¶203

AND:

¶204

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE M.S. BUILDINGS BANGALORE 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD BANGALORE-09. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 3RD FLOOR, V.V. TOWERS DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE 560 001.

¶205

M/S. NTI EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., (NAME CHANGED TO NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.) G-5, PALACE ORCHARDS APARTMENTS NO.51, 9TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560 080.

¶206

... RESPONDENTS

¶207

(BY MR. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 MR. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. R.V. JAYAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4)

¶208

¶209

THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

¶210

HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.16797/2011 (LA-RES) DATED 6.3.2013.

¶211

¶212

W.A. NO.4317 OF 2013 IN W.P. No.3292/2012

¶213

BETWEEN:

¶214

SRI. M. SAMPANGIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O MUNIRAMAIAH RESIDING AT RAMACHANDRAPURA YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560064.

¶215

... APPELLANT

¶216

(BY MR. VARADARAJAN M.S. ADV.,)

¶217

AND:

¶218

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶219

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560 009.

¶220

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER III FLOOR, V.V. TOWER DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE 560 001.

¶221

M/S NTI EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD (NAME CHANGED TO: NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF HOUSING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD., ) G-5, PALACE ORCHARDS APARTMENTS NO.51, 9TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560 080 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. R. PRAKASH.

¶222

M/S. S.B. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.902

¶223

¶224

9TH 'A' CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD 7TH CROSS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD BANGALORE-560086 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. N. CHANDRASHEKAR.

¶225

... RESPONDENTS

¶226

(BY MR. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 MR. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. R.V. JAYAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4

¶227

MR. REUBEN JACOB, FOR C/R5 )

¶228

¶229

THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.3292/2012 DATED 6.3.2013.

¶230

W.A. NO.5630 OF 2013 IN W.P. Nos.2976-80/2011

¶231

BETWEEN:

¶232

SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O THIMMAIAH.

¶233

SRI. THIMMARAYAPPA S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶234

SRI. PILLAPPA S/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.

¶235

APPELLANT NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT KODIGEHALLI GANGABHAVANI ROAD SAHAKARNAGARA POST BANGALORE - 560 092.

¶236

SRI. DODDA MUNISHAMAPPA S/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶237

¶238

SRI. NAGARAJ DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 9.12.2014.

¶239

SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA W/O CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶240

SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS . APPELLANT NOS. 4 TO 7 ARE R/AT MARUTHINAGAR KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD SAHAKARNAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 092.

¶241

... APPELLANTS

¶242

(BY MR. R.P. SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADV.,)

¶243

AND:

¶244

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶245

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶246

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 3RD FLOOR, V V TOWER DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶247

M/S. NTI EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LIMITED TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTION HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., G-5, PALACE ORCHARDS

¶248

¶249

APARTMENTS, NO.51, 9TH MAIN 6TH CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 090 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. R. PRAKASH, MAJOR.

¶250

SRI. VENKATESH DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 9.12.2014.

¶251

SMT. AKKAYAMMA W/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS MARUTHINAGAR KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD SAHAKARNAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 092.

¶252

... RESPONDENTS

¶253

(BY MR. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 MR. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. R.V. JAYAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4 MR. MANJUNATHA B.R. ADV., FOR R6 V/O DTD:9.12.2014 R5 IS ABATED)

¶254

¶255

THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

¶256

HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.2976-80/2011 DATED 6.3.2012.

¶257

THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶258

¶259

JUDGMENT

¶260

In these intra court appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the appellants / land owners have assailed the validity of the orders dated 04/05.07.2011 and 06.03.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which writ petitions preferred by the appellants seeking quashment of notifications dated 04.01.1985 and 25.09.1986 issued under Section 4(1) and under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) respectively and award dated 31.01.1989 as well as notifications dated 12/15.04.1991 and 4/5.11.1992 issued under Section 16(2) of the Act, have been dismissed. In order to appreciate the appellants' grievance, few facts need mention, which are stated infra.

¶261

The appellants claim to be the owners and in

¶262

possession of agricultural land situated at Kothihosahalli, Kodigehalli, and Bytarayanapura Villages, Yelahanka

¶263

¶264

Hobli, Bengaluru. The respondent No.4 namely National Tuberculosis Institute (NTI) Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society' for short), submitted a representation to the Government for acquisition of 66 acres and 5 guntas of land situate at Kothihosahalli, Kodigehalli and Byatarayanapura Villages for formation of a residential layout for its members. The Commissioner Revenue conveyed sanction of the government to acquire 171 acres and 37 guntas of land i.e., much in excess of the land in respect of which the acquisition was sought by the Society. It is the case of the appellants that extent of land mentioned in the aforesaid communication was fraudulently changed to 177 acres and 37 guntas. The Commissioner Revenue by a communication dated 15.12.1984 requested the special Deputy Commissioner to issue a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in respect of 280 acres of land. Thereafter, a preliminary Notification dated 04.01.1985 was issued under Section 4(1) of the

¶265

¶266

Act proposing to acquire 322 acres of land for the Society, which included the land of the appellants. On 22.08.1986, the name of the Society was changed to National Technological Institution Employees Housing Co-operative Society Limited, after obtaining approval from the competent authority. The norms pertaining to membership of the society were also changed. Thereupon the membership of the society was extended to employees of the bank and employees to State Government and others. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 22.09.1986 in respect of land measuring 210 acres and 37 guntas.

¶267

The Deputy Commissioner by a communication

¶268

dated 16.10.1986 requested the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to place the matter pertaining to acquisition of land in question before a three men Committee constituted to scrutinize the land acquisition proceeding. The three men Committee, after conducting an enquiry under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-

¶269

¶270

operative Societies Act, 1959, submitted a report dated 07.11.1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the GVK Rao report' for short) and placed the Society under the category of the Societies, which had indulged in serious irregularities. It was found in the enquiry that Society collected site deposits to the tune of Rs.2.71 crores and entered into an agreements with two agents namely M/s. Vellalu Constructions and Sri.Surya Rao and Co. and paid a sum of Rs.3.57 Crores to M/s.Vellalu Constructions. It was further found that the Society had illegally admitted large number of members from one organization. Thus, it was held that the Society had indulged in serious irregularities.

¶271

The State Government, on 28.01.1989, granted approval for acquisition of 184.04 acres of land in respect of 184.04. acres in favour of the Society under Section 11(1) of the Act (as modified by Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension Amendment) Act, 1961. Thereafter, a general award in respect of 68 acres and

¶272

¶273

36 guntas of land on 31.01.1989 and a consent award in respect of 111 acres and 33 guntas of land were passed on 28.04.1989. The State Government took possession of the land under Section 16(1) of the Act on 26.03.1999 and 03.11.1992. Thereafter, notifications dated 12/15.04.1991 and 4/5.11.1992 were issued under Section 16(2) of the Act and the possession of the lands measuring 173 acres and 29 guntas was handed over to the Society on 05.11.1992.

¶274

Some of the land owners challenged the validity of the land acquisition proceeding in W.P.No.37086/1995, which was dismissed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.07.1996. The appellants in W.A.No.2514/2013 instituted O.S.No.7694/2008 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the State Government from interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellants over the said land. The aforesaid civil suit was dismissed in default on 17.11.2008.

¶275

¶276

The appellants in W.A.No.2514/2013

¶277

thereafter filed a writ petition namely W.P.No.1998203/2010 on 29.01.2010 which was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 10.11.2010 with the direction to the Society to restore possession of the land to the owners and to the appellants subject to refund of the amount of compensation received by them. Against the aforesaid order, the Society filed a writ appeal namely W.A.No.4371-4405/2010 which was allowed by a division bench of this Court on 13.06.2002 and the order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside and the matter was remitted to the learned Single Judge to decide the issue afresh. The Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) Nos.32963-97/2012 by an order dated 09.11.2012 set aside all the observations made by

¶278

the division bench and affirmed the order of remand made by the division bench. In pursuance of order of remand, the learned Single Judge, by an order dated

¶279

¶280

06.03.2013 decided the writ petition and dismissed the same.

¶281

The appellant No.1 in W.A.Nos.16566-570/11 challenged the land acquisition proceeding in W.P.No.3049/1994, wherein interim order was granted by learned Single Judge of this court protecting the possession of the appellant No.1 in the said writ appeal. It is the case of the appellants that in view of the promise held out by the State Government to re-convey the lands to them, the appellants withdrew the petition with liberty to approach this court again in case, occasion if so arises. The State Government by an order dated 29.06.1996 directed re-conveyance of the land to the appellants. Thereafter, the Society filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.23139/1996, in which the order of re-conveyance of land in question was challenged. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this court by an order dated 15.11.1996.

¶282

¶283

The appellants challenged the aforesaid order in W.A.No.9821/1996, which was allowed by a division bench of this court by an order dated 14.12.1996 and the order of learned Single Judge dated 15.11.1996 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the learned Single Judge. The appellants filed another writ petition viz., W.P.No.4913/1996, which was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches by a learned Single Judge of this court by an order dated 24.02.1997. The aforesaid order was affirmed by division bench of this court in W.A.No.2574/1996. In pursuance of the order of remand, the learned Single Judge by an order dated 13.10.1999 remitted the matter to the State Government for fresh consideration. The Society challenged the aforesaid order in a writ appeal viz., W.A.No.2499/2000, which was allowed by a division bench of this court by an order dated 22.08.2000 and the order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside. The Government of Karnataka therefore,

¶284

¶285

withdrew the order of re-conveyance dated 10.05.1999, which was challenged by the appellants in W.P.No.27925/2000, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by an order dated 29.07.2002. However, a direction was issued to the Society to allot site measuring 40x60 feet to each of the appellants free of cost. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge in W.A.No.4919/2002 by the Society, which was allowed by a division bench of this court by an order dated 24.08.2005. The appellants thereupon challenged the validity of the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that the same was vitiated by fraud by employing middlemen / agents to influence the Government for acquiring the land and there was no prior approval under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 04/05.07.2011 on the ground of delay and laches. Some of the appellants filed writ petition viz., W.P.No.1998-2003/2010 & other

¶286

¶287

connected matters; The said writ petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.03.2013. In the aforesaid factual background, these appeals have been filed.

¶288

Learned Senior counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.2514/2013 submitted that the vendor of the appellant was owner of land measuring 28 1/2 guntas of land of Sy.No.7/1. The appellant vide registered sale deed dated 17.06.1986 purchased the aforesaid land and continued in possession. However, in last week of April, 2011, office bearers of the Society made an attempt to interfere with the possession of the appellant and tried to dispossess him from the lands in question. Thereupon, the appellant made enquiries and learnt about the acquisition proceeding. It is submitted that the proceeding for acquisition of the land is tainted with illegality as neither any scheme existed nor the same has been approved by the State Government. It is also urged that the award dated 31.01.1989 has been made

¶289

¶290

after a period of 2 years 4 months and 5 days from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. It is further submitted that in view of mandate contained in Section 11A of the 1894 Act, the proceeding for acquisition of land has lapsed.

¶291

It is also urged that GVK Rao committee report indicates gross irregularities committed by the Society. It is also urged that no notice was issued neither to the vendor of the appellant nor to the appellant for handing over the possession under Section 16(2) of the Act and compensation has also not been paid to the appellant or his vendor. Therefore, under Section 24(2) of the Act, the proceeding for acquisition of the Act, 2013 has lapsed. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in ' H.M.T. House Building Cooperative Society v. Syed Khader & Ors', AIR 1995 SC 2244 . It is also pointed out that the appellant has constructed five buildings on the land in question. It is

¶292

¶293

also submitted that the action of the respondent in dispossessing the appellant in the year 2011 from the land in question and after demolishing the super structure is per se arbitrary, more so, when the appellant was dispossessed after filing of the writ petition. It is also submitted that an application was filed before the learned Single Judge on 19.03.2012 for restoration of the status quo ante. However, the learned Single Judge has not decided the application. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed to the decision in 'Rajashekar & Ors. Vs Trinity House Building Co-operative Society & Ors .', AIR 2016 SC 4329. learned counsel for appellant in W.A.No. 2941 /2013 has adopted the submissions made

¶294

on behalf of learned Senior counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.2514/2013.

¶295

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.4317/2013 submitted that the appellant is the

¶296

owner of land measuring 14 guntas of Sy.No.17/1B.

¶297

¶298

While adopting the submissions of learned Senior counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.2514/2013, it is submitted that no notice of the acquisition proceedings was given to the appellant. It is also urged that the name of the appellant has neither been mentioned in the Notification under Section 4(1) nor in declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the Act and the proceeding for acquisition of the land is vitiated in law.

¶299

Learned Senior counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.5630/2013 while adopting the submissions made by learned Senior counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.2514/2013 submitted that the appellant had not filed any previous writ petition before this court and while inviting the attention of this court to copy of sketch of layout plan, it is pointed out that the land of the appellant is not contiguous to the parcel of land which has been acquired and neither any notice of the acquisition proceeding was issued to the appellant nor the possession has been taken from him. It is also

¶300

¶301

submitted that the facts of this case are similar to the case in H.M.T. House Building Cooperative Society. It is also pointed out that appellant has filed I.A.No.1/15 seeking declaration that the proceedings for acquisition of the land have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and appropriate orders be passed in the aforesaid Act.

¶302

Learned Senior counsel for the appellants in W.P.Nos.16566-570/2011 submitted that none of the appellants except appellant No.1 had challenged the land acquisition proceeding and question of delay and laches is not relevant in a case where the validity of the land acquisition proceeding is challenged on the ground of fraud. It is further submitted that in the instant case, the Society had employed middlemen / agents to influence the Government to acquire the land and there was neither any scheme nor any approval by the State Government under Section 3 (f)(vi) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further submitted that in view of

¶303

¶304

the large scale fraud committed by the Society, the State Government had appointed GVK Rao committee to enquire into the allegations against the Society and in the audit report it was found that a sum of Rs.6.86 Crores paid to Vellalu Construction for acquisition of the land in question by the State Government, which amounts to influencing the Government for acquisition of the land. It is further submitted that since, no housing scheme as mandated under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act has been approved by the Government, therefore, no sanctity can be attached to the acquisition proceeding. It is also pointed out that the Society on 20.01.2005 sold 10 acres of acquired land in favour of SDG Housing Private Limited, a real estate company for a consideration of Rs.10.50 Crores and the aforesaid company in turn sold 10 acres of land for a consideration of Rs.160.50 Crores on 11.01.2012.

¶305

It is also pointed out that the aforesaid

¶306

transaction clearly indicates that the acquisition was not

¶307

¶308

for any public purpose but for dabbling in real estate deals at the cost of poor farmers. It is also argued that acquisition of the land in question cannot be made under Section 4 & 6 of the Act and has to be made under Rule 4 of Land Acquisition (Company Rules), failing which the acquisition would be illegal. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on decisions in 'UTTAR PRADESH POWER

¶309

CORPORATION LIMITED VS. RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS', (2012) 7 SCC 1, 'H.M.T.HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. SYED KHADER AND OTHERS', (1995) 2 SCC 677, 'VYALIKAVAL HOUSE BUILDING COOP SOCIETY BY ITS SECRETARY VS. V.CHANDRAPPA AND OTHERS', (2007) 9 SCC 304, 'G.JAYARAM REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS', ILR 2005 KAR 1963, 'MRS.BEHROZ RAMYAR BATHA VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER', ILR 1991 KAR 3556, 'JASWANT SINGH VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA', AIR 1992 P & H 295,

¶310

¶311

'GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVANTS COOPERATIVE

¶312

HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AGRA VS. SRI.WAHAB UDDIN AND OTHERS', (1981) 2 SCC 352, 'ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, WORKS CONTRACT AND LEASING, KOTA VS. SHUKLA AND BROTHERS', (2010) 4 SCC 785, 'HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI VS. THE COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUSITION, PUNE AND ORS., 2009 VOL.111(1) BOM. L.R. 0016.

¶313

Learned counsel for appellant Nos.1 and 2 in W.A.No.16566/2011 has submitted written submissions

¶314

and has submitted that no prior approval of the scheme under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act has been obtained. It is further submitted that the amount awarded by way of compensation under consent award has not been deposited with the State Government and therefore, the acquisition proceeding is vitiated. It is also urged that the land has been acquired in flagrant violation of the procedure prescribed under the Act. It is also submitted

¶315

¶316

that the proceeding for acquisition of the land is tainted by fraud.

¶317

Learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.17016/2011, W.A.No.504/2012 and W.A.No.23/2012 submitted that appellants were not parties in any of the previous proceedings namely writ petitions and writ appeal and in the aforesaid proceedings, no conclusive finding was recorded that Society has not indulged in fraud. It is further submitted that all the previous proceedings were dismissed either for lack of proper pleadings / evidence or on the ground that the matter was pending before the State Government. It is further submitted that the issue of res judicata does not apply to the proceeding initiated by the appellants. It is contended that Society had made a proposal for acquisition of 66.05 acres only of Sy.No.26 to 39, which was increased to 171.37 acres due to the influence of middle men namely M/s.Vellalu Enterprises which was hired at the cost of Rs.3 Crores.

¶318

¶319

It is also urged that no report is in existence with regard to satisfaction recorded by the State Government under Rule 4 of the Karnataka Land Acquisition (Company) Rules, 1973. It is also submitted that proceeding for acquisition was tainted with fraud, as at the instance of the middle men, the area of acquisition was enhanced without any authority of law which is evident from the GVK Rao report.

¶320

It is urged that once fraud is established, the

¶321

question of delay and laches in challenge to the land acquisition proceedings is not relevant. It is also urged that Society neither submitted any scheme nor the same was approved as mandated under Section 3(f)(vi) of the

¶322

Act. It is pointed out that previous enquiry as contemplated under Section 40 of the Act was also not conducted. It is contended that delay is not the criteria in deciding a challenge to the fraudulent acquisition of land. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in

¶323

¶324

'HMT HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY Vs. SYED KHADAR' 1995(2) SCC 677, 'V.PURUSHOTTAM RAO

¶325

Vs. UNION OF INDIA' (2001) 10 SCC 305, 'ISWAR DUTT Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR', 2005 AIR SCW 3578, 'VYALIKAVAL HOUSING SOCIETY Vs. CHANDRAPPA', AIR 2007 SC 1151, 'M/s. ROYAL ORCHIDS Vs. JAYARAMA REDDY', (2011)

¶326

11 SCALE 239, 'BANGALORE CITY CO-OPERATIVE

¶327

SOCIETY Vs. STATE', AIR 2012 SC 1395.

¶328

On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the Society submitted that writ petitions were dismissed

¶329

by the learned Single Judge on merits after consideration of various contentions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as on the ground of delay and laches. It is further submitted that the contentions raised by the appellants in the writ petitions as well as in this appeals have already been adjudicated by various division benches of this court and

¶330

a fresh challenge to the land acquisition proceeding

¶331

¶332

suffers from delay and laches. Our attention has also been invited to several judgments rendered by various benches of this court in respect of the same Notifications and it is pointed out that validity of land acquisition proceeding ha already been upheld.

¶333

Learned Senior counsel for the Society in W.A.Nos.17016/2011, 16566/2011, 23/2011 and 50/2012 submitted that the challenge to the acquisition proceedings on the ground of fraud is unsustainable in law and same has to be made within reasonable time. It is further submitted that no particulars of fraud have been pleaded by the appellants in the writ petition. In support of aforesaid submission, learned Senior counsel for the Society has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

¶334

VS. D.R.LAXMI & OTHERS', (1996) 6 SCC 445 AND 'JOINT COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT & ANOTHER VS. D.NARASING RAO AND OTHERS',

¶335

(2015) 3 SCC 695 . It is also submitted that the

¶336

¶337

contentions raised by the appellants in the writ petitions as well as in appeals regarding involvement of middlemen, change of the name of the Society, plea regarding commission of fraud by the Society and regarding non approval of scheme under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act, have been dealt with by various decisions rendered by the learned Single Judges as well as division benches of this court. In this connection, our attention has been invited by the learned Senior counsel to various orders passed by this court. It is submitted that the issues raised by the appellants in these proceedings with regard to validity of the land acquisition proceeding are barred by principles of resjudicata and the writ petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches as the same were filed after a period of 25 years from the date of passing of the award. It is also urged that liberty was granted only to husband of appellant No.2 in W.A.No.16566/2011 by division bench of this court vide order dated 24.03.1998 in

¶338

¶339

W.A.No.8181/1996 and after a period of 8 years, the appellant No.2 submitted a representation to the State Government along with all other appellants to whom, such a liberty was not granted. Therefore, the State Government by a well considered order rejected the representation submitted by the appellants on 07.11.2008. It is also pointed out that no justifiable reasons have been assigned by the petitioners for approaching this court by filing a writ petition after a period of 24 years after the conclusion of the proceedings under the Act.

¶340

It is also pointed out that the order passed by the learned Single Judge has already been upheld by a division bench of this court vide order dated 23.03.2016 passed in W.A.No.16454/2011. It is fairly pointed out that against the order passed by division bench a special leave petition is pending before the Supreme Court. Learned Senior counsel for the Society in W.A.No.251/2013, 2914/2013, 4317/2013 and

¶341

¶342

5630/2013 have reiterated the same submissions and has pointed out that the Government has handed over the possession of the lands in question to the Society and the Society has alienated the lands in question after obtaining permission of the State Government . It is further submitted that layout has already been formed and approximately 5000 sites have been allotted to third parties. Therefore, interference at this point of time at the instance of the appellants is not called for and the writ petitions have rightly been dismissed by learned Single Judge.

¶343

Learned Government Advocate for

¶344

respondent Nos.1 and 3 has adopted the submissions made by learned Senior counsel for the society and has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference.

¶345

Learned Senior counsel for respondent No.6 viz., Antevorta Developers Private Limited submitted

¶346

¶347

that the appellants despites knowledge of purchase of land by respondent No.6 itself while seeking the relief against the aforesaid respondent have neither impleaded the aforesaid respondent nor his vendor. It is further submitted that respondent No.6 had moved an application for impleadment in W.A.No.16566/2011, which was allowed by this court. It is also submitted that in none of the remaining appeals, respondent No.6 has been impleaded as respondent and therefore, the proceedings initiated by the appellants are liable to be dismissed on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties. Our attention has also been invited to various orders, which has been passed by the learned Single Judges and division benches of this court and it is submitted that the issues raised by the appellants have already been adjudicated by various benches of this court and therefore, the writ petitions have rightly been held to be barred by principles of res judicata by the learned Single Judge.

¶348

¶349

It is contended that the proceedings initiated

¶350

by the appellants suffer from inordinate delay and laches and therefore, the writ petitions have rightly been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the same suffered from inordinate delay and laches. It is contended that respondent No.6 is a bonafide purchaser for a valuable consideration and is in possession of the property, which has been sold to it. It is also urged that the issues involved in these appeals have been decided by a division bench of this court vide order dated 23.03.2016 passed in W.A.No.16454/2011 and the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which has been impugned in these appeals dated 4/5.07.2011 has already been upheld. It is also pointed out that the aforesaid order passed by the division bench of this court has attained finality. Our attention has also been invited to the photographs available on record in support of the contention that the land, which was purchased by respondent No.6 has been developed after obtaining

¶351

¶352

permission from various statutory authorities and the land is being used for residential purposes and 6 towers out of 9 towers which were planned have already been constructed and third party interests in respect of residential units have been created in favour of several persons who are residing in the land in question.

¶353

Mr.Reuben Jacob, learned counsel appearing

¶354

for SBG Housing Private Limited has adopted the submissions made by learned Senior counsel for respondent No.6.

¶355

We have considered the submissions made

¶356

on both sides and have perused the records. The issues which arise for consideration in this batch of appeals are as follows:

¶357

(i) Whether challenge to land acquisition proceeding is barred by constructive res judicata and res judicata?

¶358

¶359

(ii) Whether the writ petitions filed by the appellants suffer from delay and laches?

¶360

(iii) Whether the sale of land made by the Society in favour of M/s SBG Co. Ltd. vitiates the land acquisition proceeding?

¶361

(iv) Whether the appellants have suppressed material facts in the writ petitions before the learned single judge?

¶362

(v) Whether proceeding for acquisition of land have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?

¶363

We shall now proceed to deal with the issues

¶364

ad seriatim.

¶365

¶366

I. Whether challenge to land acquisition proceeding is barred by constructive res judicata and res judicata?

¶367

A . Two principles namely (i) that finality should attach to binding decisions of Courts and (ii) that individuals should not be vexed twice over the same kind of litigation, have been held to form the foundation of the general rule of res judicata. The issue whether principles of res judicata apply to writ proceeding is no longer res integra and has been answered in affirmative by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ' DARYAO V. STATE OF U.P' AIR 1961 SC 1457, 'VIRUDHUNAGAR STEEL ROLLING MILLS LTD V. GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS' AIR 1968 SC 1196 AND 'SHANKAR COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. V. M. PRABHAKAR AND OTHERS', (2011) 5 SCC

¶368

607. Similarly, the principles of constructive res judicata have been made applicable to writ proceedings [See: 'DIRECT RECRUIT CLASS II ENGINEERING OFFICERS' ASSOCATION V. STATE OF

¶369

¶370

MAHARASHTRA' (1990) 2 SCC 715, 'S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS V. B. R. VASUDEVA MURTHY AND OTHERS' (2010) 3 SCC 353, 'M. NAGBHUSHANA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA', (2011) 3 SCC 408 and 'UNION OF INDIA V. S.P.SHARMA'

¶371

(2014) 6 SCC 351 ]. The Supreme Court in ' STATE OF KARNATAKA V. ALL INDIA MANUFACTURER’S ORGANISATION', AIR 2006 SC 1846 , has held that decision rendered in a public interest litigation has a binding effect as long as litigants act bonafide, as judgment in such a case binds the public at large and bars any member of the public from raising any connected issue or an issue which has been raised and should have been raised on an earlier occasion by way of public interest. [See: 'KANTARU RAJEEVARU V.

¶372

INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSN.' (2020) 2 SCC 1]. The Supreme Court in 'UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

¶373

CO. LTD. V. RAJENDRA SINGH' (2002) 3 SCC 581,

¶374

held that fraud and justice never dwell together.

¶375

¶376

Although fraud vitiates all proceeding, however, where grounds of fraud had been adjudicated in an earlier round of litigation, raising the same ground in subsequent proceeding amounts to malicious prosecution and same is not permissible in law. [See: 'MEGHAMALA AND OTHERS V. G. NARSIMHA

¶377

REDDY AND OTHERS', (2010) 8 SCC 383 ].

¶378

B . In the backdrop of aforesaid settled legal principles with regard to constructive res judicata and res judicata, we may advert to the facts in hand. Validity of Notifications dated 04.01.1985 and 25.09.1986 issued under Section 4(1) and Section 6(1) of the Act, as well as the award notice dated 10/20.08.1992 was challenged in a bunch of writ petitions namely writ petition No.37086/1995, writ petition No.27255/1992, writ petition No.45047/1995, Writ petition No.4938/1996, writ petition No.5775/1996 and Writ petition No.5795/1996. In the aforesaid writ petitions, issues with regard to involvement of the middlemen and

¶379

¶380

change of name of Society were raised. The said writ petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge by an order dated 16.07.1996. It was held as under:

¶381

11 . Sri.Sathyanarayana, appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.4983/96 contended that the acquisition in the result of colourable exercise of power as it is made at the instance of a middleman. The other counsel appearing for the petitioners in other petition also challenged the acquisition proceedings on the above said ground. In order to examine the correctness or otherwise of the said statement the petitioners must show that they have approached this court within a reasonable time under Art.226 of the Constitution. As stated earlier the preliminary Notification is issued on 04.01.85 and the final Notification is issued on 22.09.86 the award is signed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 01.07.1988 and approved by the State Government on 28.01.1989. Thereafter, possession was taken on 27.03.1992 by the Government

¶382

¶383

and the Government in turn handed over the possession to the 4th respondent Society on 05.11.1992. In the statement of objections filed by the 4th respondent it is stated that after taking possession of the land the Society has formed layout by spending considerable amount of money and allotted the sites in favour of the members of the Society. This shows that the Society has developed the property and thereafter allotted the sites in favour of its members. The persons who are the allottees of the sites have not been impleaded as party to the proceedings in these petitions. If the acquisition impugned is declared as vitiated virtually it affects the rights of the third parties who are not parties to these petitions. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners who filed writ petitions in the year 1992 and 1995 that is about five or six years after the acquisition cannot be said that they have approached the court within a reasonable time. Sri.Satyanarayana, contended that the acquisition of land is on account of the

¶384

¶385

fraud and is result of colourable exercise of power. When such being the case any delay in approaching this court cannot be construed as unreasonable delay in order to throw out the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. The petitioners in W.P.No.37086/95 and 4938/96 contended that the petitioners are still in possession of their lands and no sites have been formed on their lands. It is very difficult to believe this submission in view of the fact that the Notification has been issued under Section 16(2) of the Act. Section 16(2) as amended by the State Act, reads as follows:

¶386

"The fact of such taking possession may be notified by the Deputy Commissioner in the office gazette and such Notification shall be evidence of such fact."

¶387

In the instant case, Notification under Section 16(2) of the Act, has been issue don 27.03.1991 and this is conclusive proof of taking possession from the land owners, therefore, it is difficult to believe the

¶388

¶389

statement made by the petitioners in the above said writ petitions.

¶390

15 . Sri.Vivek, learned counsel submitted that after the issuance of the preliminary Notification the name of the 4th respondent - Society has been changed by the Society itself and the subsequent Notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act is not in respect of the Society for which 4(1) Notification was issued earlier. Mere change of the name of the Society. The change of name is in accordance with the bye laws of the society and it will alter the status of the society. Therefore, even though there is a change of name of the society the subsequent under Section 6(1) of the Act is for the benefit of the society.

¶391

C. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge at the instance of the petitioners in W.P.No.5795/1996, in which plea with regard to commission of fraud on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court in ' HMT HOUSE BUILDING

¶392

¶393

COOPERATIVE SOCIETY V. SYED KHADER AND OTHERS', AIR 1995 SC 2244 was taken. The aforesaid contention was repelled by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 13.02.1998. The relevant extract of the order reads as under:

¶394

No ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge who has dismissed the petition not only on the ground of delay and laches, but also on merits finding that the pleas raised by the appellants were without any substance. The owners of the land were proved to have been issued with notices under Section 4 of the land acquisition Act and the award passed within the statutory period. The plea regarding commission of fraud appears to be an after thought and carved out only to file a petition after the pronouncement of the judgment by the Supreme Court in HMT House Building Co-operative Society vs. Syed Khader and Others (AIR 1995 SC 2244). The learned Single Judge also rightly held that as third party rights of about 5000

¶395

¶396

persons are likely to be affected by interference at the belated stage the petition was not maintainable.

¶397

There is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order requiring our interference.

¶398

D. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.07.1996 was challenged by the petitioners of W.P.37086/1996 and W.P.No.5775/1996 in W.A.No.8181/1996 along with W.A.Nos.7633-44/1996.

¶399

A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.03.1998 upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge and it was held as follows:

¶400

5 . It is settled position of law that, fraud has to be pleaded with full details and particulars and also indicating the time and the circumstances under which such came to the knowledge of the person pleading such fraud. The averments made in para 22-C referred to herein are apparently vague and ambiguous and without particulars. The submissions made at the

¶401

¶402

Bar were never sought to be pleaded even by amendment. Fraud being a question of fact was required to be pleaded offering the other side an opportunity to reply the same. In the absence of pleaded fraud, the court could not adjudicate pleas raised with respect to it. We have not been pursuant to accept the plea regarding the commission of fraud on the basis of averments made in para 22-C and to take different view than the one which we have taken while disposing of the writ appeal No.8216/96.

¶403

6 . There is no merit in the appeals which are accordingly dismissed. It is however observed that, the dismissal of these appeals would not prevent the appellants from bringing to the notice of the concerned authorities the detailed facts and circumstances with respect to commission of alleged fraud and if such plea is raised, the saps is expected to be disposed of in accordance with law applicable in the case.

¶404

E . The validity of the land acquisition proceeding

¶405

was also challenged in a public interest litigation namely

¶406

¶407

in W.P. No. 24386/1999 in which a Division Bench of this Court considered the report submitted by G.V.K. Rao Committee, and issue with regard to involvement of middlemen was considered and it was held as follows:

¶408

Appearing for the petitioner Mr.Nagamohandas strenuously argued that the acquisition of the land in question by the impugned Notification was not in public interest. He urged that the society having engaged the services of a middle man, any acquisition proceedings initiated or concluded at the instance of such an agent were illegal, hence liable to be quashed. It was contended that the previous writ petitions filed by the land owners and the Association had not raised the said plea, which could, according to the learned counsel be urged in the present writ petition filed in public interest. There is in our opinion, no merit in that contention. We say so for three precise reasons. In the first place, the land owners for whose benefit the writ petition purports to have been filed having themselves questioned the validity

¶409

¶410

of the acquisition proceedings, a second petition for the very same relief in the garb of a petition in public interest cannot be nullified in the garb of a petition in public interest cannot be maintained. If a party has himself filed a petition and secured a verdict from the court, the effect of any such verdict cannot be nullified in the garb of another petition purporting to have been filed in public interest. There is no gain said that what the party could not himself do cannot be done by a friend or proxy on his behalf. Secondly because, even if such a petition could be said to be maintainable, the same is hopelessly barred by unexplained delay and laches. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is noteworthy, was issued as early as on 4th of January 1985. The final declaration came on 22nd of September 1986 whereas the award determining compensation was made on 1s to July, 1988 and approved by the Government on 28th of January, 1989. The possession of the land in question was

¶411

¶412

taken over by the Government on 27th of March, 1992 and handed over to the respondent society on 5th of November , 1992. The entire process having thus concluded, a challenge to the validity of the same years later would on the face of it be wholly frivolous and an abuse of the process of this court. That is especially so when the society has not only developed the area but made allotment of sites to the eligible members and transferred title sites to the eligible members and transferred title to them. None of these allottees being parties to these proceedings, it is difficult to see how any interference with the acquisition proceedings could be justified at this distant point of time in the name of public interest.

¶413

Thirdly because, the ground on which the petitioner seeks intervention was in fact taken by the land owners and rejected. It is evident form a reading of the order of this courting W.P.No.37086/1995 and connected matters dated 16th of July 1996 that fraud and colourble exercise of power

¶414

¶415

in the matter of initiation of the acquisition proceedings was specifically raised as a ground of challenge. The contention did not however find favour with this court nor was the appellate court impressed by the same. The contention was in fact held to be an after though and unsupported by any specific pleading or material to support the same. In that view therefore, the exercise of power by the authorities on account of the involvement of a middle man must fail not only because a similar plea had already been raised before this court and rejected but because there is no material whatsoever to show whether the agent appointed by the society had in fact influenced the land acquisition proceedings let alone in a martial manner so as to render the proceedings illegal.

¶416

F . The issues pertaining to approval of scheme under section 3(f)(vi) of the Act, the non applicability of decisions rendered in HMT HOUSE BUILDING

¶417

COOPERATIVE SOCIETY as well as issues pertaining to res judicata and delay and laches were considered by

¶418

¶419

another Division Bench of this Court in

¶420

W.A.No.1480/2006 and it was held as under:

¶421

28 . We have already held above that acquisition proceedings have been upheld in the earlier writ petition before this court in W.P.No.37086/95 and also Public Interest Litigation Petition in W.P.No.24386/99 disposed of on 29.09.2000 and wherefore, it is also indisputable that unless the petitioner is able to prove that respondent No.3 - society has committed fraud, the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner is to be explained as it is well settled that the petitioner having accepted the acquisition proceedings and received compensation, cannot challenge acquisition proceedings after a lapse of 19 years from the date of final Notification. Unless he is able to prove that respondent No.3 has committed a fraud or that the sale made by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4 would initiate the acquisition proceedings and render the same invalid. What is contended

¶422

¶423

by the appellant in W.A.No.1480/2006 by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant is that no approval under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act was granted for acquisition proceedings and wherefore, the entire acquisition proceeding is vitiated. We have already stated that acquisition proceedings has been challenged before this courting W.P.No.37086/1995 and W.P.No.24386/99 and all contentions which could be raised in the said writ petition cannot be agitated in the present writ appeals. Even otherwise, it is clear from the perusal of the intimation sent by the Government i.e., letter dated 12.10.1982 wherein, the respondent No.3 - Society has been permitted to initiate the acquisition proceedings. It is well settled that no particular form of approval is necessary for approval of the scheme submitted by respondent No.3 - Society for initiation of acquisition proceedings and in view of the said letter dated 12.10.1982, it is clear that the same can be construed as approval for initiating acquisition proceedings, wherein

¶424

¶425

sanction is accorded to initiate the land acquisition proceedings in favour of the employees of N.T.I. Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., respondent No.3Society herein under normal rules.

¶426

34 . What is connected by the writ petitioner-appellant in the present case is that sale of the property measuring 10 acres in respect of respondent No.3 - Society would vitiate the acquisition proceedings. It is clear from perusal of the decision and principles laidd own in case of (H.M.T. HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. SYED KHADER AND OTHERS (AIR 1995 SC 2244) that the Hon'ble Supreme Court having regard to the fact that an agreement had been entered into between the Society and M/s S.R. Constructions, held that the only land in respect of which M/s S.R. Constructions entered into an agreement of sale should be the subject matter of the acquisition and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that exercise of power under Section 3(f)(6) of the act and the provisions of the Act is

¶427

¶428

vitiated and it has been clearly held in para 8 of the said decision that exercise of statutory power under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act is not based on objective consideration of the materials, on the basis of which the appropriate Government could have formed an opinion that the lands of the writ petitioners were required for public purpose and because of that it was necessary to acquire the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that the fact that Society had entered into an agreement wit the middlemen and exorbitant amount was paid to M/s S.R. constructions in the said case, who was an estate agent and as per the agreement, the said estate agent - M/s S.R. Constructions deposited the amount required for acquisition proceedings and the possession of the lands in respect of the said estate agent - M/s S.R. Constructions had agreement of sale which was the subject matter of acquisition and the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the Notification issued under Section4(1) and 6(1) of the Act as mala fide and that the

¶429

¶430

entire proceedings is vitiated and restored the land to the land owners but the said decision is not helpful to the writ petitioner in the present case in W.A.No.1480/2006 and there is no merit in the contention of the learned Senior counsel that the facts of the case is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶431

G. Some of the land owners had challenged the land acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.21863/2011 ( NANJAMMA V. PRL. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF

¶432

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS ), which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 05.07.2011. The said order was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16360/2011, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 31.03.2016 solely on the ground that acquisition has lapsed under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. However, the aforesaid order was set aside by the Supreme Court vide order dated

¶433

¶434

06.07.2017 in Civil Appeal No.8593/2017 [ ANTEVORTA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD. V. PRL. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ] and Civil Appeal No.8594/2017 ( NTI v. NANJAMMA ) and it was held that challenge to the land acquisition proceedings suffers from delay and laches. It was held as under:

¶435

5 . While the question of lapsing of the acquisition proceedings is one facet of the case, the long delay in approaching the writ Court i.e. about 25 years against the acquisition made in the year 1985 is another relevant aspect of the matter. It is our considered view that taking into account the long period of delay, the High Court ought not to have chosen to exercise its writ jurisdiction particularly when the grant of relief to the writ petitioner – respondent (Nanjamma) would have worked adversely to the interests of the appellant, an innocent and bona fide purchaser.

¶436

6 . For the aforesaid reasons, we interfere with the order of the High

¶437

¶438

Court and allow these appeals leaving the respondent – writ petitioner (the owner) with the remedy of availing all legal options for recovery of just compensation payable to her for the impugned acquisition, if such compensation has not been paid till date.

¶439

H. It is pertinent to note that validity of the order dated 04/05.07.2011 has already been upheld by a division bench of this court vide order dated 23.03.2016 passed in W.A.No.16454/2011 and all the contentions urged in the appeals have been repelled. The relevant extract of the order reads as under:

¶440

15. Mr.Dwarakanath submits that the housing society has engaged a middleman and therefore it is enough to hold that the entire acquisition proceedings was vitiated by fraud and colourable exercise of power.

¶441

16. We have gone through the statement of the general secretary of the housing society. Our understanding of the matter is that the housing society has

¶442

¶443

appointed an agency / manager, as there were a large number of members in the housing society and to facilitate delivery of possession of the sites formed in the layout by the housing society. There was no indication whatsoever to show that here was exchange of money for the purpose of proposal of the acquisition.

¶444

17. Mr.Dwarakanath submits that initially the beneficiary for which the Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act issued was National Tuberculosis Institute Housing Building Co-operative Society , but on the date of issuance of Notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, the name of the beneficiary was changed to National Technological Institutions Employees House Building Co-operative Society. Thus, the acquisition is bad.

¶445

18. The change of nomenclature of the beneficiary cannot cause any hindrance in the acquisition process. The beneficiaries are the employees of the organization and they wanted to form a layout for the purpose of their housing. Therefore, the

¶446

¶447

acquisition proceedings, in our view, cannot be lapsed due to change in the nomenclature of the beneficiary.

¶448

19. Mr.Dwarakanath further submits that for the purpose of acquisition, a threeman committee was constituted and in spite of an adverse report submitted by the committee against the fourth respondent housing society, the Notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued. Therefore, the acquisition is bad.

¶449

20. We believe that all these points are no longer available to the appellants - writ petitioners, as earlier there were writ petitions being writ petition Nos.14493 and 14498 of 1993, challenging the very notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act and the said writ petitions were rejected by judgment and order dated January 11, 1999.

¶450

Therefore, a public interest litigation was filed in the year 1999, challenging eth acquisition. That was also rejected.

¶451

¶452

21. there was an appeal against the judgment and order dated January 11, 1999 in W.A.No.4602 of 1999, which was also dismissed by judgment and order dated June 28, 2020.

¶453

22. In the circumstances, these subsequent writ petitions challenging the very same Notifications filed in the year 2011, were rightly held to be not maintainable. In writ proceedings, assuming for the sake of arguments, the principle of res judicata as indicated in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not applicable, the principle akin to that is certainly applicable.

¶454

It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid decision

¶455

has attained finality and binds the parties.

¶456

I . Thus, it is evident that validity of land

¶457

acquisition proceeding has been upheld and the grounds pertaining to fraud, involvement of middlemen, change of name of the Society, applicability of decisions in HMT HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY non

¶458

¶459

approval of scheme under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act, have been negatived by various benches of this court. It is pertinent to note that issues pertaining to res judicata and delay and laches have also been adjudicated by division bench of this Court vide order passed in W.A.No.1480/2006. The appellants cannot be permitted to raise the issue with regard to applicability of the decision of the Supreme Court in VYALI KAVAL HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY supra on the principles of constructive res judicata. The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.8593/2017 and 8594/2017 has repelled the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings on the ground of delay and laches and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8593/2017 and 8594/2017, the issues raised in these appeals cannot be entertained. It is also noteworthy that judgment of the learned Single Judge which is impugned before us, has already been affirmed by a division bench of this court in W.A.No.16454/2011

¶460

¶461

and the said decision has attained finality. Thus, it is evident that challenge to the land acquisition proceeding is barred by principles of constructive res judicata as well as res judicata. The doctrine contained in maxim “ boni judicis est lites dirimere, ne lis ex lite onitur, et interest reipulicate ut sint fines litium ” which casts a duty upon the Court to bring litigation to an end or to atleast ensure that if possible no further litigation arises from the cases pending before the Court in accordance with law, would be applicable with greater emphasis where the judgment of the Court has attained finality before the highest Court. Therefore, all other Courts should decide similar cases, particularly covered cases, expeditiously and in consonance with the law of precedents [See: 'SPECIAL

¶462

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER V. KARIGOWDA AND OTHERS', (2010) 5 SCC 708 AND 'PRIYA GUPTA V. STATE OF CHATTISGARH' (2012) 7 SCC 433 ]. The aforesaid doctrine has to be applied to the facts of these cases. There is an eminent need for consistency in the

¶463

¶464

view of coordinate benches on the same issue, which has been laid down by the Supreme Court in ' SHANTHI

¶465

CONDUCTORS (P.) LTD. VS. ASSAM SEB' (2016) 15 SCC 14 and it has been held that subsequent bench would follow the earlier coordinate bench except in compelling circumstances such as where the order of earlier bench can said to be per incuriam. In the instant case, the various judgments rendered by benches of this court cannot be said to be per incuriam and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by various benches of this court. The decision of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8593/2017 and 8594/2017 dated 06.07.2017 in which the challenge to this very land acquisition proceedings has been repelled by the Supreme Court on the ground of delay and laches binds us. For the aforementioned reasons, it is held that writ petitions filed by the appellants have been rightly held to be barred on the principles of constructive res judicata and

¶466

¶467

res judicata by the learned single judge. Thus, first issue is answered in the affirmative.

¶468

II. Whether the writ petitions filed by the appellants suffer from delay and laches?

¶469

A. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take

¶470

advert to well settled principles with regard to delay and laches. It is trite law that when there is an inordinate delay in filing a writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings and where all steps taken in acquisition proceeding have become final, the court should circumspect in quashing the Notification. The discretionary jurisdiction while dealing with land

¶471

acquisition proceedings in a writ petition which suffers from inordinate delay and laches has to be exercised with great circumspection. [See: ' MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CO. PVT.

¶472

LTD. & ORS. (1996) 11 SCC 501, 'MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, AHMEDNAGAR & ANR. VS. SHAH HYDER

¶473

¶474

BEIG & ORS., (2000) 2 SCC 48, 'SWAIKA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.', AIR 2008 SC 1494, 'JASVEER SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS', 2017 (6) SCC 787, KHATOON

¶475

VS. STATE OF U.P.', (2018) 14 SCC 346 ].

¶476

B. In backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal

¶477

prepositions, the following relevant dates may be noticed.

¶478

Notification under
04.01.1985
Section 4(1) of the Act
Declaration under
25.09.1986
Section 6(1) of the Act
General award in
respect of 68 acres
31.01.1989
and 36 guntas of land
on
consent award in
respect of 111 acres 28.04.1989
and 33 guntas of land
Notifications under 12/15.04.1991
Section 16(2) of the and
Act 4/5.11.1992

¶479

¶480

possession of the
lands measuring 173
05.11.1992.
acres and 29 guntas
was handed over to
the Society

¶481

Writ petition Nos.	Delay
W.P. Nos.16289-16298/2008	19 years
W.P.Nos.15607-611/2008	19 years
W.P. Nos.16238/2009 & 17107- 110/2009	20 years
W.P.Nos.1999-2002 & 2004- 2032/2010	21 years
W.P.No.16797/2011	22 years
W.P.No.3292/2012	23 years
W.P.Nos.2976-80/2011	22 years

¶482

C. Thus, it is evident that writ petitions have been

¶483

filed in the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 after an inordinate delay of 19 years, 20 years, 21 years, 22 years and 23 years respectively, for which no explanation has been offered. It is well settled in law that fraud vitiates every proceeding. However, even in a case of fraud, challenge to the proceeding has to be made within reasonable time from the date of detection

¶484

¶485

or discovery of fraud. [SEE: STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS VS D.R. LAXMI AND OTHERS (1996)

¶486

6 SCC 445 and JOINT COLLECTOR RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AND ANOTHER VS D NARSING RAO

¶487

(2015) 3 SCC 695 ]. In the instant case, the pleadings in the writ petition are conspicuously silent with regard to the alleged date of detection or discovery of fraud. Thus, there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the writ petitions and all steps taken in the proceedings for acquisition of land have become final. The possession of the land in question has been taken and the same has been handed over to the Society and the land in question has been developed and third party rights have also been created. The appellants have miserably failed to explain the inordinate delay in approaching this court. The writ petitions, therefore, suffer from inordinate delay and laches. The learned Single Judge has therefore rightly held that the writ

¶488

¶489

petitions suffer from delay and laches. We, concur with the aforesaid finding of the learned Single Judge.

¶490

III. Whether the sale of land made by the Society in favour of M/s SBG Co. Ltd. vitiates the land acquisition proceeding?

¶491

A . The Society had sought the permission the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to sell the land measuring 10 acres. The permission was granted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by an order dated 21.12.2004 subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. In pursuance of the aforesaid permission, the land measuring 10 acres was sold by the Society to M/s SBG Housing Pvt Ltd vide sale deed dated 20.01.2005 after inviting tenders for a consideration of Rs.10.5 crores. The aforesaid sale consideration has been utilized by the Society for payment of demands made by Bangalore Development Authority and Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited as well as for development of the Layout. The State Government had

¶492

¶493

issued a notice dated 02.08.2006 to aforesaid M/s SBG Housing Pvt Ltd on the ground that the sale made in its favour was not in accordance with law. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore was directed to cancel the mutation and RTC extracts in respect of land purchased by M/s SBG Housing Pvt Ltd. The aforesaid order was challenged in writ petition and the learned Single Judge by an order dated 31.05.2007 quashed the notice dated 02.08.2006 issued to M/s SBG Housing Pvt Ltd. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the State Government in WA No.2204/2007 which was dismissed along with WA No.1480/2006 by an order dated 18.03.2010. The State Government did not challenge the order passed by the division bench of this court in WA No.2204/2007. Thus, the sale in favour of M/s SBG Housing Pvt Ltd has been upheld by a division bench of this court and the State Government has accepted the aforesaid position.

¶494

¶495

B. The issue with regard to the validity of the sale was also urged in WA No.1480/2006 which was dismissed by an order dated 18.03.2010 and it was held as under:

¶496

The only other contention which required to be considered has to whether the sale of land by the respondent No.3-Society in favour of respondent No.4 is valid. According to the petitioner, the said sale would vitiate the entire acquisition proceedings. As the registrar of cooperative society who permitted the sale of land by the respondent No.3 in favour of the respondent No.4 had no jurisdiction to permit such sale and permission ought to have been taken by the Government but permission has been granted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies with an object of public purpose for which lands are acquired in exercise of the powers. It is well settled that question as to whether the sale made by respondent No.3 in favour of the respondent No.4 under the impugned sale deed is valid or not has to be decided by the Government and not by this court in the writ appeal. In fact, a proceeding

¶497

¶498

had been initiated before the Government challenging the sale made by the 3rd respondent in favour of respondent No.4 and to set aside the acquisition made on behalf of the respondent No.3 - Society and the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department by an order dated 11.7.2008 rejected the prayer of the owners of the land to set aside the acquisition and to direct hand over the lands to the owners. Being aggrieved by the same W.P.No.15607-15611/2008 have been filed and the said proceeding passed during the pendency of these writ petitions is pending consideration and validity of the sale deed and effect of the same on the acquisition and validity of the sale deed and effect of the same on the acquisition has to be considered in the said writ petitions and hence. We do not intend to go into the said question in the present appeal as the same are pending consideration before this Court in W.P.Nos.15607-15611/2008 wherein, the order passed by the Government, which is a competent authority, about the validity of the same and validity of the acquisition proceeding has been pending for consideration.

¶499

¶500

Accordingly, we hold that there is no merit in Writ Appeal No.1480/2006.

¶501

C. The aforesaid order was challenged in SLP No.14072-14076/2011 before the Supreme Court, which was withdrawn and subsequently, the order dated 18.03.2010 passed by division bench of this court attained finality. The order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP No.14072-14076/2011 reads as under:

¶502

After arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that his client may be permitted to withdraw the special leave petitions with liberty to seek intervention in the pending matter.

¶503

The request of the learned counsel is accepted and the special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer made.

¶504

D. Thus, the issue pertaining to sale of land measuring 10 acres by the Society has also been

¶505

¶506

adjudicated. In any case, the transaction in question took place several years after the land was allotted to the Society. Once the possession the land in question was taken from the land owners, the land vested in the State Government absolutely and was transferred to the Society. Therefore, the appellants cannot be permitted to agitate the aforesaid issue in these proceedings and in any case, the same does not have the effect of vitiating the land acquisition proceedings which otherwise have attained finality on account of the decision of the Supreme Court dated 06.07.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.8593/2017 and 8594/2017. In ROYAL

¶507

ORCHID HOTELS LTD AND ANR VS G JAYARAM REDDY AND OTHER (2011) 10 SCC 608 Supreme Court has held that when the writ petition was filed after the land which was acquired for public purpose was transferred to private persons the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquisition. However, in the facts of the present case, even the aforesaid issue is not

¶508

¶509

open to be agitated in these proceedings as the same is barred on the principles of constructive res judicata, res judicata as well as delay and laches. It is also pertinent to note that the proceeding for the acquisition of land has attained finality and successive challenges to the same have been repelled by various benches of this court and the Supreme Court. Therefore, the aforesaid decision in ROYAL ORDCHIDS supra is not applicable to the obtaining factual matrix of these cases. Thus, the aforesaid issue is answered in the negative and findings recorded by the learned Single Judge on the aforesaid issue are affirmed.

¶510

IV. Whether the appellants are guilty of suppression of material facts?

¶511

A. It is a fundamental principle of law that a person invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must approach the Court with clean hands and should not conceal material facts. It has further been held that there is necessity to save

¶512

¶513

judicial process from becoming abuse to subvert justice. The need to approach the Court with clean hands is all the more necessary as Law is not a game of chess [SEE:'RAMJAS FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA', 1993 SUPP (2) SCC 20, 'RAJKUMAR SANI VS. STATE OF U.P.', (2007) 10 SCC 635, 'MANOHARLAL VS. UGRASEN', (2010) 11 SCC 557, AND 'AMARSINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA', (2011) 7 SCC 69].

¶514

B. It is pertinent to note that liberty was granted to the husband of petitioner No.2 in WP No.15607-611/2008 to approach the State Government with regard to their grievance. However, none of the appellants have stated in their writ petitions that liberty was restricted to appellants in WA No.8181/1996 and 7633-34/1996 which was disposed of on 24.03.1998. Some of the appellants who have received the compensation and are parties to the consent awards have not stated the said facts in their writ petitions. The appellants have also

¶515

¶516

suppressed the fact that the possession of the land in question has been taken from them. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the appellants are guilty of suppression of material facts is affirmed. V.

¶517

(V.) Whether proceeding for acquisition of land have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

¶518

2013?

¶519

A. The aforesaid issue need not detain us. It is

¶520

relevant to note that a division bench of this Court by an order dated 31.03.2016 passed in W.A.No.16360/2011 (NANJAMMA VS. PRL. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS) had

¶521

quashed the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that the same has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The aforesaid order was set aside by Supreme Court by order dated 06.07.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.8593/2017 [ ANTEVORTA

¶522

¶523

DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD. V. PRL. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ] and Civil Appeal No.8594/2017 (NTI Vs. NANJAMMA) and it was held that the challenge to the land acquisition proceeding suffers from delay and laches and liberty was granted to the owners of the land to avail of all legal options for recovery of just compensation.

¶524

B. In view of aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the issue whether the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act cannot be examined in this proceeding. Accordingly, the issue No.V is answered.

¶525

Before parting, it is apposite to take note of submission made by learned Senior counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.2514/2013 that learned Single Judge ought to have dealt with the interlocutory application dated 19.03.2012 filed for seeking the relief of restoration of status quo ante. It is pertinent to note

¶526

¶527

that learned Single Judge has held that the challenge to the acquisition proceedings suffers from delay and laches and therefore, the writ petitions were dismissed in limine. Therefore, it was not necessary for the learned Single Judge to pass an order on the interlocutory application. In any case, the pending interlocutory application does not survive after decision of the writ petition. As far as I.A.No.1/2015 filed by the appellant in W.A.No.5630/2013 is concerned, in which prayer has been sought for quashing of the land acquisition proceeding on the ground that the same have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the same also deserves to be dismissed for the reasons assigned by us while dealing with issue No.V. It is made clear that land bearing Sy.No.69/7 situated at Village Kodigehalli to the extent of 14 guntas is not subject matter of these appeals.

¶528

¶529

In view of preceding analysis, we do not find any

¶530

merit in these appeals. The same fail and are hereby

dismissed.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE