028.01 G.V.K.RAO-2 ( Judicial Layout)
028.01As Scan.GVK Rao Report
028.01Bs scan Soc President Statement to GVK Enquiry

Highlights of the Writ Petition:

Para 6

Though the 4th Respondent, House Building Co-operative Society, is styled as "Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society", and the Bye-laws of the 4th Respondent, society, also states that "the Judicial employees can become its members, the fact that almost all the Judges barring a few have fallen pray to the machination of vested
 interest and become its members is indeed shocking.

How can such Judges decide any matter which comes before them, against any such House Building Co-operative Societies, impartially when they themselves have become a part of such fraudulent House Building Society is a question that looms large in the minds of the general public. The Judges may have the capacity to pass orders without allowing themselves to be influenced by these extraneous factors, but then justice should not only be done it should appear to have been done. In the instant case, what appears need not be specified it is anybody guess.

Para 2

In other words, House Building Co-operative Societies in Karnataka are the Fraudulent windows created mainly for the purpose of indulging in land grabbing for amassing wealth by misusing the relevant provisions of law as a smokes screen.

All the money these societies have paid by way of bribe was accounted as the sum paid to the middlemen

This is the general pattern adopted by all the House Building Co-operative Societies, including the 4th Respondent herein, to grab the land by back door method for the purpose of amassing wealth by indulging in the sale of house sites. The so called office bearers of the House Building Co-operative societies are virtually the land proprietors of the Institutions. They manipulate, from time to time, the records to show that they were the elected members.

These so called House Building Co-operative Societies were really formed as a show windows for the purpose of collecting money and distributing the said money amongst all those persons who are behind these House Building Co-operative societies, such as politicians in power, the relevant authorities in bureaucracy and the proprietors of these House Building Co-operative Societies, who are otherwise styled as the committee or Management.


Para 3

Sri M. Chandrashekhar, published a white paper relating to the affairs of the Bangalore Development Authority wherein, it was announced categorically that it is the policy of the Government of Karnataka not to encourage the Private House Building Co-operative Societies.

The policy, which was made on the floor of the Legislature and widely published, has neither been withdrawn nor nullified by the State of Karnataka to the Knowledge of the petitioner.

The Petitioner reliably learns and believes
  it to be true that in the eve of the General Elections to the Lok Sabha of 1985, the concerned Minister of the then Janata Government in Karnataka, more particularly, the then Chief Minister of Karnataka, and the then Minister for Housing & Urban Development & Co-operation, entered into an unholy agreement and Cooperation, entered with the different profit mongering House Building Co-operative Societies to provide them sufficient lands on the basis of quid pro-quo.

The object of this unholy
  agreement to the detriment of the public interest and also to the interest of those Agriculturists like that of the petitioner, who has to loose his land for the benefit of the profit mongering House Building Co-operative Society, who used to collect huge amount of money for Janata Party, which was required badly to face the ensuing Lok Sabha Poll. It appears that the then Ministers concerned agreed to provide any extent of lands that is demanded by the House Building Co-operative societies provided fixed amount of illegal gratification is paid to them for each Acre of Land that may be acquired in favour of the Co-operative societies.

The petitioner learns reliably and believes it to be true that several unscrupulous and blood sucking House Building Co-operative Societies, including the 4th Respondent herein, whose main aim was to amass wealth at the cost of the poor Agriculturists, who own lands, under the pretence of serving the general public, jumped into fray and advanced to take advantage of the situation by paying huge amount of money to the concerned Ministers who belong to the Janata Party.

The matter was even taken to the Lokayuktha, which did not evince any interest to go into the complaint touching the matter of acquiring the lands for about 128 House Building Co-operative Societies, including the 4th Respondent herein.

Para 4

The 1st Respondent, State Government, with a view to achieve its objective of favouring about 128 House Building Co-operative Societies, provided vast extent of agricultural lands by resorting to acquisition, constituted "Three Men Committee" as a camouflage to cover their black deed.

This demonstrates the determination on the part of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka to acquire the lands for the benefit of the profit mongering House Building Co-operative Societies, not-withstanding that many of such societies are fraud on the people on any standard.

Para 5

it has been revealed that those five House Building Societies, including the 4th Respondent, are not acting in accordance with the Co-operative principles, on the other hand, these societies have been established with the sole purpose of amassing wealth at the cost of the poor Agriculturists, who will be deprived of their lands for the benefit of these societies, as a result of collusion between the 1st Respondent, State Government, and the profit mongering so called House Building Co-operative Societies.

It is, therefore, believed the State Government is deliberately with-holding the contents of the One Man Committee Report from the public knowledge again to favour the 128 co-operative Societies because of the unholy understanding with the concerned Minister of the 1st Respondent State Government; had entered into with these unfair House Building Co-operative Societies sometime before 1984 LokSabha General Elections.

Para 7


The law being one sided, the land owners, whose lands are to be acquired, in this case the petitioner, will have only a limited option. At that time, the petitioner was not aware that the 4th Respondent, Housing Society, is a fraudulent institution and the acquisition of land, initiated in its favour, is the result of the fraudulent exercise of power.

After the conclusion of the land acquisition proceedings, the president of the 4th Respondent, Society, again approached the petitioner and requested him not to challenge the land acquisition before this Hon’ble Court and the 4th Respondent would get two and a half acres of land, out of the total extent of land acquired, would be reconveyed to the petitioner. Believing such a promise, held-out by the president of the 4th Respondent, Society, and realizing that ordinarily the Land Acquisition Proceedings cannot be successfully challenged before the Court of Law, the petitioner did not approach this Hon’ble High  Court in challenging the action of the 4th Respondent, anytime earlier.

The Division Bench Decision of this Hon’ble Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. 13100 to 13180 of 91 and the matter was thus pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. By an order dated 21st February,1995, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed all the S.L.P.s, duly confirming the Division Bench Decision of this Hon’ble Court and subsequently directing that the acquired lands, if already taken possession by the State Government, must be restored back to the owners. The relief granted in those writ petitioners were not confined only to the petitioners thereon, but extended to all those who have not approached this Hon’ble Court challenging the acquisition proceedings.

As already stated, the Petitioner was not aware of the fraudulent nature of the whole transaction until the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court set aside the land acquisition proceedings, made in favour of some other House Building Co-operative Society, whose dealings were similar to that of the 4th Respondent herein.

Para
10

Under these circumstances, it is very clear that the registration of these societies, including the 4th Respondent, is contrary to the provision of the cooperative societies act and therefore, their registrations are liable to be struck-down. It is manifestly clear that the entire transactions of the land acquisition in favour of the 4th Respondent is fraud on law and the result of collusion between the men in power, bureaucracy and the profit mongering fraudulent institutions like the 4th Respondent, which are styled as cooperative Institutions only for the purpose of defrauding the general public.

The acquisition is only for commercial purposes and it is an act of favoritism on the part of the 1st Respondent, smacking of mal-administration and therefore, the proposed acquisition of the lands, impugned in this writ petition is contrary to the aims and objects of the Land Acquisition Act.
 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

(Original Jurisdiction )

Writ Petition No. 28707 of 95

 Between:

B.V. Reddy, Major,

S/o. R.Byrappa,

Allalasandra Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.                   … Petitioner.

 AND:

1)      The State of Karnataka

By The Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Revenue,

M.S. Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore,

2)      The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore,

3)      The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Podium Block,

3rd Floor, Vishveshwaraiah Tower, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore,

4)      The Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society,

High Court Building, Bangalore

5)      The Registrar of Co-operative Societies,

All Askar Road, Bangalore.                                                                                              … Respondents.

 

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 228 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:

               

The Petitioner, above named, begs to submit as follows:

 

1)      The Petitioner is the owner of 9 Acres  and 34 Guntas of lands in Survey No.89/1 of Allalasandra village, Yalahanka Hobli Bangalore North Taluk.

The said land was notified to be acquired  for the benefit for the 4th Respondent, House Building Co-operative society, and the preliminary Notification in this regard under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued vide No BAQ(1) SR 8/87-88, dated 10th February, 1988. In the preliminary Notification in question, several other lands belonging to several other owners were also notified to be acquired. The Petitioner’s land is found at Sl.No.20 in the Notification. Thereafter, the Notification under section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was also issued vide No. RD/155/AQB/84 dated 24th February,1989, and published in the official Gazette, dated 27th February, 1989. The Notification issued by the authorities in this regard, under section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act respectively, are herein produced as ANNEXURES -‘A’ & ‘B’.  Subsequently, a further proceedings of this land acquisition has also taken place. The total area of the land, including the land belonging to this petitioner, for which acquisition proceedings were initiated and acquired there under, is to the extent of 237 Acres and 14 Guntas, the petitioner challenges the said Land Acquisition Proceedings in this Writ Petition on the main ground that the action of the Land Acquisition is vitiated by fraud and therefore, not sustainable. 

2)           The Petitioner submits that the 4th Respondent, society, and scores of scores of other House Building Co-operative societies are not the bonafide co-operative institutions, carrying on the aims and objectives of the co-operative movement, but they are the fraudulent institutions setup by vested interests to grab the lands by back door methods and to amass wealth by indulging in the Real Estate business under the guise of furthering the objectives of the co-operative movement. In other words, House Building Co-operative Societies in Karnataka are the Fraudulent windows created mainly for the purpose of indulging in land grabbing for amassing wealth by misusing the relevant provisions of law as a smokes screen. The modus operandi of these House Building Co-operative Societies, including the 4th Respondent herein, was to collect huge amount of money from the general public, tempting them with house sites, and get the lands acquired from the authorities by paying huge amount of sum at every stage by way of Illegal gratifications, in other words, Bribe. For this purpose, the house building co-operative societies in general and the 4th Respondent in particular, has appointed middlemen and through the middle-men, the hands of all the relevant men in authority were greased by way of paying exorbitant sum of money as a quid-pro-quo. All the money these societies have paid by way of bribe was accounted as the sum paid to the middlemen. It is submitted at this juncture that no co-operative society can function through the middlemen nor it can encourage middlemen. The primary object of the co-operative movement is to eliminate middlemen and help the consumers directly to avoid  exploitation. These Housing Societies, through the middlemen, got the preliminary Notification for Land Acquisition including the preliminary Notification in the instant case, issued and thereafter some agents would approach the land owners and scare them by confronting the preliminary Notification and stating that the lands would be acquired by the authorities at any cost and in that event, they would get only the nominal amount of compensation. There would be no use in resisting the land acquisition proceedings, which will only delay the proceedings, on the other hand if the land acquisition proceedings is not opposed by the land owners, they would be paid with some extra amount, if the agreement is executed in favour of any of the agents of the housing societies, and give a power of Attorney to represent the owners before the Land Acquisition Authorities. The helpless land owners, without finding any other way out and scared by the threat that their lands would be taken away at any cost, used to execute agreements in favour of the Agents of the co-operative societies as per their  dictation and also the power of Attorney required by them, by receiving some extra amount. There after, the entire acquisition proceedings takes place without the knowledge of the land owners and at the instance of the so called power of Attorney Holders. The Land Acquisition Authorities mechanically use to proceed at the behest of the Agents of the house Building Co-operative Societies, in the instant case the 4th Respondent, and complete the same in collusion and at the instance off the fraudulent House Building Co-operative Societies. This is the general pattern adopted by all the House Building Co-operative Societies, including the 4th Respondent herein, to grab the land by back door method for the purpose of amassing wealth by indulging in the sale of house sites. The so called office bearers of the House Building Co-operative societies are virtually the land proprietors of the Institutions. They manipulate, from time to time, the records to show that they were the elected members. The State Government, unusually, will never interfere in their affairs or supervise their activities. These so called House Building Co-operative Societies were really formed as a show windows for the purpose of collecting money and distributing the said money amongst all those persons who are behind these House Building Co-operative societies, such as politicians in power, the relevant authorities in bureaucracy and the proprietors of these House Building Co-operative Societies, who are otherwise styled as the committee or Management.

3)           That, in elaboration of what has been stated in the above paragraphs, the petitioner submits that the 1st Respondent, State Government, which was at the relevant time under the control of the Janata Government, came to power after the general Elections to the Karnataka State Assembly during 1984. Immediately after the formation of the Janata Government, the then Minister for Urban Development and Housing, Sri M. Chandrashekhar, published a white paper relating to the affairs of the Bangalore Development Authority wherein, it was announced categorically that it is the policy of the Government of Karnataka not to encourage the Private House Building Co-operative Societies. The policy, which was made on the floor of the Legislature and widely published, has neither been withdrawn nor nullified by the State of Karnataka to the Knowledge of the petitioner. But, still the Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and thereafter the Authorities issued Notifications under section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, as stated in the foregoing paragraphs of this writ petition- copies of the said Notifications under sections 4 (1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act are produced at Annexures-A &B. The said notifications, impugned in this writ petition, are contrary to the declared policy of the state Government and therefore, the Special Deputy Commissioner has no authority or jurisdiction to issue Notification for the purpose of acquiring the land in favour of the 4th Respondent, House Building Society. The Petitioner reliably learns and believes  it to be true that in the eve of the General Elections to the Lok Sabha of 1985, the concerned Minister of the then Janata Government in Karnataka, more particularly, the then Chief Minister of Karnataka, and the then Minister for Housing & Urban Development & Co-operation, entered into an unholy agreement and Cooperation, entered with the different profit mongering House Building Co-operative Societies to provide them sufficient lands on the basis of quid pro-quo. The object of this unholy  agreement to the detriment of the public interest and also to the interest of those Agriculturists like that of the petitioner, who has to loose his land for the benefit of the profit mongering House Building Co-operative Society, who used to collect huge amount of money for Janata Party, which was required badly to face the ensuing Lok Sabha Poll. It appears that the then Ministers concerned agreed to provide any extent of lands that is demanded by the House Building Co-operative societies provided fixed amount of illegal gratification is paid to them for each Acre of Land that may be acquired in favour of the Co-operative societies. The House Building Co-operative Societies, in and around Bangalore City, including the 4th Respondent herein, whose aim was to amass wealth at the cost of the poor Agriculturist, who own lands, under the pretence of serving the "General Public". The petitioner learns reliably and believes it to be true that several unscrupulous and blood sucking House Building Co-operative Societies, including the 4th Respondent herein, whose main aim was to amass wealth at the cost of the poor Agriculturists, who own lands, under the pretence of serving the general public, jumped into fray and advanced to take advantage of the situation by paying huge amount of money to the concerned Ministers who belong to the Janata Party. The Minister concerned appears to have entered into this variety of unholy agreements with the House Building Co-operative Societies when the Assembly was dissolved and the care taker Ministry was continued. The House Building Co-operative Societies rushed forward to take advantage of the situation paying huge amount, running into orders of Rupees, and with such ill-gotten money, the Janata Party appears to have fought the 1984 Lok Sabha Elections and also the subsequent 1985 General Elections to the "Karnataka Legislative Assembly". After the Janata Party came to power, duly winning the Elections of 1985, the 1st Respondent, State Government, was obliged to provide sufficient extent of lands to the various House Building Co-operative Societies, duly acquiring the Lands of the Agriculturists to the detriment of the owners who are generally poor. The 4th Respondent, House Building Co-operative Society, is also one of such unscrupulous society, which appears to have paid huge amount to the Janata Party Leaders to get the lands acquired for the benefit of the said society.

       It is with this background, the Notifications in question under sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act had been issued for the purpose of providing lands to the 4th Respondent, society. Under these circumstances, the entire land acquisition proceedings is vitiated by fraud, mal-practices and such other Vices, which cannot receive the support of the law relating to the acquisition of lands for the public purpose. After the Janata Government commenced land acquisition proceedings one after the other in favour of the various House Building Co-operative Societies, there were severe criticism, both inside and outside the Legislature. The matter was even taken to the Lokayuktha, which did not evince any interest to go into the complaint touching the matter of acquiring the lands for about 128 House Building Co-operative Societies, including the 4th Respondent herein. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that the Special Deputy Commissioner, the 2nd Respondent herein, has acted as a tool. In the hands of the ministers, who wanted the House Building Co-operative societies to be favoured. The Notifications in question is, therefore, issued Mechanically at the behest of the 1st Respondent, State Government, without application of mind by the concerned authority, particularly the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents, as designed by the concerned ministers. The Notification in question are, therefore, vitiated by malafide exercise of power.

4)           The 1st Respondent, State Government, with a view to achieve its objective of favouring about 128 House Building Co-operative Societies, provided vast extent of agricultural lands by resorting to acquisition, constituted "Three Men Committee" as a camouflage to cover their black deed. The proclaimed object of the   Three Men Committee was to process the applications of the House Building Co-operative Societies for lands and to verify the correctness of the membership of each society and their dealings, etc. But, the real object was only to achieve their objective of providing lands to the House Building Co-operative Societies by giving direct instructions to the Three Men Committee by the Government. The Three Men Committee was not permitted to investigate itself into the affairs of each House Building Co-operative Societies, on the other hand, from time to time, the 1st Respondent, State Government, instructed the Three Men Committee to clear the applications of certain House Building Co-operative Societies without delay, and in cases where the Three Men Committee really went into the matter with honesty and made a correct report to the disadvantage of the House Building Co-operative societies, such reports of the Three Men Committee were respected more in their breach than observances. It is pertinent to mention here that a State level Coordination Committee set up by the 1st Respondent for the purpose of coordinating the Land Acquisition work with the Three Men Committee,  recommended to the Three Men Committee to clear the Notifications under section 4(1) of the Act for acquiring 403 Acres and 22 Guntas of lands, on the conditions that the detailed verification and investigation by the Co-operation Department, regarding the alleged bogus membership and bogus agreement entered into by a society, as soon as possible and in any case, before the issue of Notification under section 6(1) of the Act. The petitioner submits that there are several allegations of omissions and commissions, irregularities and illegalities committed by the societies and in the light of such allegations and prima facie evidence in that regard, the State Level Coordination Committee was compelled to make the above referred recommendations to the Three Men Committee before clearing the issuance of Notifications under section 4(1) of the Act. But, without adhering to the instructions or the recommendations of the State Level Coordination Committee, the Land Acquisition Officer made hurried efforts to complete the acquisition proceedings. The 4th Respondent, society, has contravened its own Bye-laws by enrolling bogus members, etc. It is relevant to mention here that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the 5th Respondent herein, had initiated inquiries under section 64 of the Co-operative Societies Act to inquire into the activities of the various House Building Co-operative Societies, 128 in number. The then Chief Minister of Karnataka interfered by way of writing letters, directing the 5th Respondent to stop further proceedings under Section 64 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Any effort by the 5th Respondent to convince the then Chief Minister that such an inquiry is necessary, has not yielded any result. This demonstrates the determination on the part of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka to acquire the lands for the benefit of the profit mongering House Building Co-operative Societies, not-withstanding that many of such societies are fraud on the people on any standard.

5)           The Petitioner submits that the 1st Respondent, State Government, appointed one Sri G.V.K.Rao, who was than the Director of weights and Measures, as "One Man Committee to go into the affairs of the 128 House Building Co-operative Societies and submit a report to Government", some time during the year 1987. The State Government was compelled to appoint this One Man Committee  because of the severe public criticism against the then Government to the effect that the then Government is favouring the House Building Co-operative Societies, which are day in and day out indulging in unscrupulous activities and further, not acting in accordance with the Co-operative principles. The petitioner learns and   believes it to be true that the G.V.K.Rao, One Man Committee, submitted an Interim Report, touching the affairs of about five House Building Co-operative Societies, including the 4th Respondent, House Building Society. In the said Interim Report, according to reliable information received by the petitioner, it has been revealed that those five House Building Societies, including the 4th Respondent, are not acting in accordance with the Co-operative principles, on the other hand, these societies have been established with the sole purpose of amassing wealth at the cost of the poor Agriculturists, who will be deprived of their lands for the benefit of these societies, as a result of collusion between the 1st Respondent, State Government, and the profit mongering so called House Building Co-operative Societies. It is further submitted that the One Man Committee (Sri G.V.K. Rao Committee ) has subsequently submitted its Final Report to the State Government and that Report, according to the information gathered by the petitioner, completely exposes the haloness of the claim of the house building societies, numbering 128, that these societies have been established for the benefit of the general public. These Societies have been established with the profit motive and they are indulging in varieties of mal-practices for the sake of amassing wealth. The Report of the One Men Committee has not been made public by the 1st Respondent State Government. The Petitioner believes that the One Man Committee Report on the working of the 128 House Building Co-operative Societies has irked the 1st Respondent, State Government, and therefore,  the 1st Respondent is shy of making the said Report Published. It is, therefore, believed the State Government is deliberately with-holding the contents of the One Man Committee Report from the public knowledge again to favour the 128 co-operative Societies because of the unholy understanding with the concerned Minister of the 1st Respondent State Government; had entered into with these unfair House Building Co-operative Societies sometime before 1984 LokSabha General Elections. The petitioner further learns and believes it to be true that after the appointment of G.V.K.Rao Committee, there was an effort to stall the investigation by the One Man Committee. For some reasons or the other, the 1st Respondent, State Government, failed in its attempt to stall the investigation and submission of the Final Report. It is with this background, the Report of the One Man Committee cannot the obtained by the Petitioner and produce before this Hon’ble Court in this Writ Petition. This Hon’ble Court may please to call for records and peruse the contents of the Report of the One Man Committee, which the petitioner is sure, is going to sustain the allegations made in this writ petition against the 1st Respondent State Government.

6)            The petitioner submits that some vested interests, which are instrumental in forming several other identical type of House Building Co-operative Societies, are behind in forming the 4th Respondent, Housing Society, also. The main purpose of forming the 4th Respondent, society, is to get the Judicial sympathy and support for all the House Building Co-operative Societies, whenever action showing favour to the house Building Co-operatives by the Governmental authorities are challenged before the Judiciary. To what extent the vested interests have succeeded in getting the Judicial verdicts in their favour by these fraudulent methods- the petitioner is not able to say. The vested interests in their endeavor might have been succeeded or might not have been succeeded that is altogether different matter.

But, the fact remains that the 4th Respondent, House Building Co-operative Society, was got formed by the vested interests with the ulterior motive of securing the Judicial protection. It is shocking to note that many of the judges, both sitting and retired, were tempted to obtain house sites by becoming members of the 4th Respondent, House Building Society, which is fraud on the earth. Obviously this has the potentiality of shocking the public confidence in the judiciary itself.

Though the 4th Respondent, House Building Co-operative Society, is styled as "Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society", and the Bye-laws of the 4th Respondent, society, also states that "the Judicial employees can become its members, the fact that almost all the Judges barring a few have fallen pray to the machination of vested  interest and become its members is indeed shocking.

How can such Judges decide any matter which comes before them, against any such House Building Co-operative Societies, impartially when they themselves have become a part of such fraudulent House Building Society is a question that looms large in the minds of the general public. The Judges may have the capacity to pass orders without allowing themselves to be influenced by these extraneous factors, but then justice should not only be done it should appear to have been done. In the instant case, what appears need not be specified it is anybody guess.

7)           The petitioner submits that the 4th Respondent, House Building Co-operative Society, entrusted the job of getting the lands acquired- in other words, grabbed for it to -a middleman called ‘Devatha Builders’ and entered into an agreement with the middlemen, dated 11th December, 1985. According to the terms of the said agreement, the middleman received six lakhs of Rupees as advance at the time of execution of the agreement and further amounts are to be received, stage by stage, caring the proceedings of the land acquisition. In all, according to the agreement, Rs.110/- per Sq. Yard is to be paid to the middleman. This amount to obviously meant for bribing the authorities to push through the land acquisition and thereby grab the land for the benefit of the 4th Respondent. According to the terms of the agreement, the 4th Respondent entered into with the middleman, Devatha Builders, Rs.25/- per sq. yard will have to be paid after the middleman gets the 4(1) Notification issued and after the 6(1) Notification is got issued, another sum of Rs.25/- per sq. yard, and so on. The petitioner, though aware of every details of the agreement, he is not able to produced the copy of the said agreement since he could not secure the same. This agreement is available in record, which, this Hon’ble Court may please be called for and peruse. The assertion of the petitioner is substantiated by the audit Report of the 4th Respondent, Housing Society, for the period 1991 to 1994. According to the Audit Report, 1 Crore & 8 Lakhs was paid to the middleman, Devatha Builders. The petitioner learns and believes it to be true that as on 31st March, 1994, the total amount of Rs.5,92,11,324/- has been paid to the middleman by the 4th Respondent, Housing Society. It is, therefore, clear the 4th Respondent, Housing Society, got the land acquisition proceedings initiated and completed only by paying crores of Rupees illegal gratification and the said land acquisition cannot be for the public purpose at all. The petitioner further learns and believes it to be true that the 4th Respondent, Housing Society, was not able to give the accounts for the sum of Rs.94,33,572/- which was said to be paid to the Agents of the builder. The G.V.K.Rao One Man Committee has also gone into the affairs relating to the 4th Respondent, House Building Society, and the petitioner herein produces the copy of the report relating to the 4th Respondent, House Building Co-operative Society, made by the G.V.K.Rao One Man Committee, along with the statement filed by the president of the 4th Respondent, Society, all in 4 sheets, as ANNEXURE-‘C’.  It is submitted that in the instant case, after the 4(1) Notification was issued, the president of the 4th Respondent, House Building Co-operative Society, approached the petitioner and assured him that he will see that two and a half acres of land, belonging to the petitioner, notified to be acquired, would be reconveyed to him after the completion of the acquisition proceeding in case the petitioner cooperates with the 4th Respondent, Society without opposing the acquisition proceedings. However, the petitioner opposed the land acquisition proceedings before the authority to the extent possible in vain. It may be stated here that in the land acquisition matters, once the authority makes the declaration that it is required for public purpose, it is not easy for the victim land owners to successfully resist the same. The law being one sided, the land owners, whose lands are to be acquired, in this case the petitioner, will have only a limited option. At that time, the petitioner was not aware that the 4th Respondent, Housing Society, is a fraudulent institution and the acquisition of land, initiated in its favour, is the result of the fraudulent exercise of power. After the conclusion of the land acquisition proceedings, the president of the 4th Respondent, Society, again approached the petitioner and requested him not to challenge the land acquisition before this Hon’ble Court and the 4th Respondent would get two and a half acres of land, out of the total extent of land acquired, would be reconveyed to the petitioner. Believing such a promise, held-out by the president of the 4th Respondent, Society, and realizing that ordinarily the Land Acquisition Proceedings cannot be successfully challenged before the Court of Law, the petitioner did not approach this Hon’ble High  Court in challenging the action of the 4th Respondent, anytime earlier.

The Division Bench Decision of this Hon’ble Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. 13100 to 13180 of 91 and the matter was thus pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. By an order dated 21st February,1995, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed all the S.L.P.s, duly confirming the Division Bench Decision of this Hon’ble Court and subsequently directing that the acquired lands, if already taken possession by the State Government, must be restored back to the owners. The relief granted in those writ petitioners were not confined only to the petitioners thereon, but extended to all those who have not approached this Hon’ble Court challenging the acquisition proceedings.

This Judgment is fall-out of Questioning the "Division Bench Decision of this Hon’ble Court in question viz., Narayana Reddy Vs. the State of Karnataka and others, reported in ILR 1991 KAR 2248.

The Supreme Court Judgment is very much attracted in the instant case and on the basis of that, this writ petition is liable to be allowed.

As already stated, the Petitioner was not aware of the fraudulent nature of the whole transaction until the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court set aside the land acquisition proceedings, made in favour of some other House Building Co-operative Society, whose dealings were similar to that of the 4th Respondent herein.

 The petitioner is therefore, entitled to get the relief sought for in this writ petition on the basis of the Division Bench decision of this Hon’ble Court and also the  subsequent confirmation of the said decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

8)            The petitioner submits that the 4th Respondent, House Building Cooperative Society, is not a Government Company, within the meaning to the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 (Act 68/1984). This amendment was enforced from 24th September, 1984. Section 3(CC) defines the expression Corporation owned or controlled by the State. Disputedly, the 4th Respondent is not covered by the expression Corporation owned or controlled by the State because the said expressions shall not include Private Co-operative societies. The Housing Scheme, as contemplated by section 3(f)(6), shall be such Housing Scheme which shall serve maximum number of members of the society, such housing scheme should be useful to the public. That, any such scheme, submitted by the cooperative society, relating to the housing, must receive prior approval of the appropriate Government. Then only, the acquisition of the land for such scheme can be held to be for public purpose. If this requirement is not strictly followed, then any acquisition for the Housing Cooperative Societies cannot be held to be for the public purpose. In the instant case, the procedures laid-down for the acquisition of lands for the befit of the company has not been followed as required under law. The acquisition was got done through the middlemen, who were a go-getter between the Government and the 4th respondent, society -in other words, a carrier. In the instant case, it is submitted that there is no prior approval of the housing scheme within the meaning of section 3(f)(6) of the Act and therefore, the acquisition cannot be held to be for the public purpose. Even if there is a previous    consent as required under section 39 of part VII of the Act that cannot be construed as a prior approval of the appropriate authority. For these reasons also, the acquisition is not sustainable.

9)             The petitioner further submits that the preliminary Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 11th February, 1988 and thereafter, the Final Notification as required under section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 24th February, 1989, and published in the Official Gazette, dated 27th February,1989. The award, as required under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, sought to have been passed before 27the February, 1991. In the instant case, the award has not been passed within that period, but it has been passed after the lapse of the prescribed period -to the information and belief of the petitioner. It is submitted that without prior approval of the State Government, no final award can be passed by the authorities. In the instant case, the proposed award is said to have been approved by the Government in their order No. RD 29 AQB 91, dated 13th March, 1991, which is beyond two years from the date of the final notification i.e., 24th February, 1989, and thereafter, no final award has been passed still date to the information and belief of the petitioner. A copy of the proceedings maintained by the 3rd Respondent in case No. LAC 900/88-89, wherein it is stated that the State Government approved the proposed award only on 13th March, 1991, is herein produced as ANNEXURE-‘D’. For this reason, the entire Land Acquisition stands lapsed by operation of law.

10)        The 4th Respondent, Society, is registered under the Karnataka Co-operative society Act, 1959. Section 7 of the cooperative society Act deals with the registration of the cooperative societies. The cooperative societies can be registered under the relevant Act if only that application for registration complies with the provisions of the act and the Rules further, under section 7, any cooperative society can be registered only if the object of the proposed society is in accordance with section 4 of the Act. Under section 4, it is only such of the societies whose object is the promotion of economic interest or general welfare of its members or the public in accordance with the cooperative principles. No society can be registered, which may have an adverse effect on the development of the cooperative movement. The petitioner is sure that the House Building Cooperative Societies, including the 4th Respondent herein, are not acting in accordance with the cooperative principles and their activities are definitely having an adverse effect on the development of cooperative movement. Under these circumstances, it is very clear that the registration of these societies, including the 4th Respondent, is contrary to the provision of the cooperative societies act and therefore, their registrations are liable to be struck-down. It is manifestly clear that the entire transactions of the land acquisition in favour of the 4th Respondent is fraud on law and the result of collusion between the men in power, bureaucracy and the profit mongering fraudulent institutions like the 4th Respondent, which are styled as cooperative Institutions only for the purpose of defrauding the general public.

11)         The petitioner submits that the acquisition of lands belonging to the petitioner and several other similarly placed agriculturists, for the benefit of such House Building Cooperative Societies, including the 4th Respondent herein, cannot be for the public purpose for the reasons stated above. The acquisition is only for commercial purposes and it is an act of favoritism on the part of the 1st Respondent, smacking of mal-administration and therefore, the proposed acquisition of the lands, impugned in this writ petition is contrary to the aims and objects of the Land Acquisition Act. It is, therefore, clear the impugned action by the concerned Respondent is opposed to law, besides causing serious injury to the right and interest of the petitioner, against which, there is no other adequate or efficacious remedy available, except approaching this Hon’ble Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on the following and other grounds that may be urged at the appropriate stage. The petitioner has not filed any other writ petition or initiated any other legal proceedings on the same cause of action.

 

GROUNDS

12)   (a)    The impugned action of the concerned Respondents is against law, facts and circumstances of the case and principles of natural justice.

          (b)    The impugned action is arbitrary, capricious, besides actuated by malafide.

         (c)     The activities of the 4th Respondent, House Building Co-operative Society. Is not in conformity with the aims and objects of the cooperative movement and therefore, any acquisition of land in favour of such societies cannot be held to be for the public purpose.

        (d)    The registration of the 4th Respondent, House Building Cooperative Society, under the relevant Act, is repugnant to the laudable principles laid-down under the Cooperative societies Act and it will have adverse effect on the cooperative movement in the State of Karnataka.

       (e)    The impugned action is further vitiated by collusion, fraud and favouritism.

      (f)     The impugned action is not only against law, but detrimental to the right and interest of the petitioner. Acquiring lands belonging to the poor Agriculturists for the benefit of the vested interests like the House Building Cooperative Societies, who are said to be indulged in nefarious activities, is opposed to the public policy and injurious to the rule of law and therefore, liable to be set aside.

       (g)   The impugned action suffers from total lack of jurisdiction, in view of the fact that the lands belonging to the petitioner, proposed to be acquired, are all covered under the Green Belt Area and prohibited for acquisition.

    (h)   The impugned actions are even otherwise contrary to law and opposed to the public interest and therefore, not sustainable.

13)                                                   GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

        It is clear from the foregoing paras of this writ petition that the entire land acquisition proceedings in question is vitiated by fraud and therefore, not sustainable in law. However, the state of Karnataka is in a hurry to complete the acquisition proceedings and dispossess the petitioner. If the petitioner is dispossessed during the pendency of the writ petition, serious injury will be caused to his right and interest, which no other remedy would be available at the later stage. It is, therefore, just and proper to grant the interim relief as prayed for in this writ petition. The balance of convenience is also in favour of granting the interim relief as prayed for.

 

PRAYER

 14)    WHERE, the petitioner humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may please to call for records and :

(a)      Issue appropriate Writ or order or Direction, declaring that the land acquisition proceedings, initiated by issuing Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, bearing No.LAQ(1)SR 5/87-88, dated 11th February, 1988 and culminated with the issuance of the Final Notification under section 6(1) of the Act, bearing No.RD/156/AQB/84, dated 24th February, 1989, copies of which are produced at Annexures-A & B respectively, and all further proceedings taken pursuant there to, are void and inoperative:

(b)   Issue appropriate writ or order or Direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to restore the possession of the acquired lands to the owners, particularly the petitioner herein.

(c)    Issue appropriate writ or order or Direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the 5th Respondent Registrar of Cooperative societies, to cancel the registration of the 4th Respondent, House Building Cooperative Society, made under the Cooperative societies Act, holding that the activities of the 4th   Respondent, society cannot be construed as the cooperative movement, but contrary to the aims and objects of the Cooperative Societies Act.

(d)   Issue such other writ or order or Direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, under the circumstances of this case, including the cost of this writ petition, the secure the ends of justice.

15)                                    PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

        Pending disposal of this writ petition, this Hon’ble Court may please to direct the Respondents not to alter the nature of the lands which was acquired under the Notifications impugned under this writ petition, any further but to maintain the status quo of the lands as it stands on the date of this writ petition to secure the ends of justice.

 

Place:   Bangalore

Dated: 20th July 1995.                                                                                                                       Advocate For The Petitioner.

 

Address For Service:

A.K. Subbaiah, Advocate, 151, Matadhalli Further Extension,

R.T. Nagar, Bangalore 560 032.


 

AFFIDAVIT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE WRIT PEITITION NO. 28787  OF 95 [LA]

 

BETWEEN:

 B.V. Reddy, Major                                                                   … Petitioner

 AND:

The State of Karnataka and four others.                             …. Respondents

 AFFIDAVIT VERIFYING THE WRIT PETITION

 

I, B.V. Reddy, Major, S/o. R.Byrappa, resident of Allalsandra Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, now at Bangalore, make oath and state as follows:

1.         I am the petitioner in the above case and I am well conversant with the facts of the case.

2.       I state that the averments made in paragraphs 1 to 15 of the writ petition, accompanying this affidavit, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

3.       I state that the Annexures –A to D, produced along with the writ petition, are the true copies of the originals.

 

Place: Bangalore.

Dated: 20th July, 1995.

Identified By Me:

 

Advocate:                                                                                                                                                                                                  Deponent.

 

No. of correction: