New Delhi, Oct 26 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday set aside land acquisition proceedings initiated over three decades ago in Nelakadiranahalli Village, Bengaluru after finding fraud, serious procedural irregularities and absence of a duly approved housing scheme undertaken for a cooperative society.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran in its judgment allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the high court’s division bench, and restored the order passed by the single judge.
Writing the judgment, Justice Chandran referred to the observations of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in a case and said no governmental authority exercises unlimited power and its decisions must remain subject to judicial review.
“‘The power of eminent domain, next to that of conscription of manpower for war, is the most awesome grant of power under the law of the land’… what the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania observed applies equally in our shores too. Condemnation of privately owned land for public purpose can only be with authority of law and with just compensation being paid,” the verdict said.
Authority of law can be exercised only for public purposes, it said, adding that payment of just compensation is an ancillary right, which does not by itself justify an acquisition.
“However just the compensation be, if the authority of law is lacking or the public purpose is absent, there can be no eminent domain exercised. The appellants herein allege lack of authority in law; complete absence of public purpose and fraud having vitiated the instant acquisition,” the verdict said.
The verdict came on an appeal by N Arasappa.
The plea challenged the acquisition on grounds including lack of legal authority, absence of public purpose and fraud.
It said that housing schemes sponsored by cooperative societies were recognised as a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, following the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, which came into force on September 24, 1984.
However, the plea said that a valid acquisition required a properly prepared housing scheme, including a layout plan or blueprint, approved by the competent government authority.
The top court found that an agreement entered into with a third party even before the relevant amendment came into force exposed the fraudulent nature of the arrangement.
The agreement contemplated assistance in acquiring land under the Land Acquisition Act for implementing a housing scheme.
The verdict further said that the acquisition authorities had proceeded without a properly formulated and approved housing scheme.
The absence of a finalised layout plan and blueprint, together with inadequate consideration by the relevant committees and government authorities, vitiated the acquisition proceedings, it said.
The verdict also found serious deficiencies in the manner in which compensation was handled.
Government file notings indicated that the society had not deposited the amounts required to satisfy the compensation awards for disbursement to the landowners, it said.
The verdict held that the division bench had erred in overturning the single judge’s detailed findings by relying on grounds such as res judicata and delay in approaching the court, without adequately examining the compelling allegations of fraud and colourable exercise of power.
It observed that such procedural objections could not sustain the acquisition in the face of established defects and findings concerning fraud and undue influence, particularly in light of earlier Supreme Court decisions involving similar cooperative societies and comparable allegations.
The top court accordingly set aside the division bench judgment and restored the single judge’s order.
However, considering the passage of time, it deleted the direction to initiate contempt proceedings against government officers.
The costs imposed by the single judge were enhanced to Rs 50,000 for each petitioner, or the group of legal representatives of an original petitioner who were appellants in the civil appeals.
The controversy dated back to September 1984, when the Peenya-based House Building Cooperative Society entered into a private agreement with a third-party firm, M/s Bhagya Enterprises, to act as a middleman for acquiring private lands in Nelakadiranahalli.
Following this, state notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued between 1988 and 1989 to condemn approximately 59 acres.
When landowners challenged the acquisition in 2007 citing widespread irregularities, a single judge of the Karnataka High Court quashed the notifications. However, a division bench later reversed the ruling primarily on technical grounds of delay and prior rulings.
The top court struck down the division bench’s judgment on several key counts, including the fact that the agreement with Bhagya Enterprises was signed before the 1984 amendment introduced housing schemes by cooperative societies as a ‘public purpose’ under Section 3(f)(vi).
The arrangement to pay commission to private entities to push government notifications was held to be illegal, opposed to public policy and a misuse of state machinery, it said.
The bench said that physical possession of the acquired land must be restored to original landowners, whether or not they personally challenged the acquisition.
It said that returning landowners must refund any statutory compensation received from the state government without interest. PTI SJK SJK KSS
KSS
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.