Frauds in Land Acquisition

Conspiracy of Govt. of Karnataka and Fraud Housing Society:
Crimes committed on Land Acquistion Act.

1) Fraud Judges' Society & Govt.of Karnataka claims that 156 acres of land is acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act); but on the date of taking possession of lands in 1992 Govt. had not paid a penny to land owners or had deposited the compensation in the courts as per law. Fraud Judges' Society got posession of lands of 139 Acres in 1992 by conspiring with Govt.of Karnataka . By Fraud Judgement of 1994 given by Justice G.P. Shivaprakash (who is member of this Society & built Bunglow on a site) with Corrupt motives entered into tacit conspiracy & got it listed before him; who knew that Not-a-Penny is paid as Compensation; with a Coercive-Conspiracy with Respondents, the Govt, & directed to hand over 17 Acres of lands.[005.05] [024.03] [026.01]

( Our Judiciary in 1949: FIRSTLY, that Mr. Justice Sinha has been guilty of judicial misconduct inasmuch as his decision in the following cases were grossly un-judicial and based on ultra-judicial considerations and were of such a nature as to induce a belief in the mind of the public that they were actuated by corrupt motives.Finding him "guilty of improper exercise of Judicial functions, the cumulative effect of which was to lower the dignity of his office and undermine the confidence of the public in the administration of justice…") [008.07].

2 )  Prior to Amendment to L.A. Act in 1984 it had become a practise to make "Private Purpose" into "Public Purpose"; the Govt. is to dole out a penny or Rs. 100 in every Awards passed so as to show that it complys with the then existing law. For example: Justice N. Venkatachala, the present Vigilance Commissioner of Karnataka (Lokayukta); in 1994 dealing with a case of Land Acquisition made in favor of Srinivasa House Building Co-op. Society consisting of Advocates and Chartered Accountants in or around Hyderabad in 1982 or so; Supreme Court speaking through Justice Venkatachala and another quashed the land acquistion despite the fact that Andhra Govt. had contributed a bit of money to make the acquisition as Public Purpose. For complete judgement click here [003.07]  Fraud Judges' Society had also entered into Agreement with Govt. of Karnataka on 4th January 1988 as per Karnataka Land Acquisition (company) Rules.[005.01]
( Impeachment Trial of Justice Ramaswami of his powers and authority as Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana first charge   was in respect of the alleged willful abuse by Justice Ramaswami of his powers and authority as Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in unauthorisedly getting purchased from favored dealers, items of furniture, furnishings and other articles value at more than RS. 13 lakh, far in excess of and wholly disproportionate to the requirements of the official residence and the office wing thereof and beyond the limits prescribed by the relevant rules for the residential portion of the official residence.)

3 )  Sonia Gandhi's Mother-in-law Mrs. (Late) Indira Gandhi as her last desire which turned into Parliamentary Act i.e. Act No. 68 of 1984 by which she desired that no lands of any farmers / agriculturalists shall be acquired for any Private company in the guise of "Public Purpose". And any acquisition in the name of Public Purpose was limited to Govt. Companies i.e. the companies in which Central or State Govt. or together have stake of 51% or more of the Company's holdings.(
 

Land Acquisition ( Amendment ) Act, 1984.

The "STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS OF ACT 68 OF 1984"
(relevant matter to the subject in context in respect of contents) is as follows:

  1. With the enormous expansion of the State’s role in promoting public welfare and economic development since independence, acquisition of land for public purposes, industrialisation, building of institutions etc., has become far more numerous than ever before. While this is inevitable, promotion of public purpose has to be balanced with the rights of the individual whose land is acquired, thereby often depriving him of his means to livelihood. Again, acquisition of land for private enterprises ought not to be placed on the same footing as acquisition for the State or for an enterprise under it. The individual and institutions who are unavoidably deprived of their property rights in land need to be adequately compensated for the loss keeping in view the sacrifice they have to make for the larger interests of the community........... )     [ 003.09]

4 )  Accordingly Supreme Court of India on December 3, 1997 in AMARNATH ASHRAM TRUST SOCIETY AND ANOTHER…… Appellants Versus GOVERNOR OF U.P. AND OTHERS…….. Respondents held that the acquisition for any Pvt. Company has to be under Part VII of LA Act but not under Part II as "Public Purpose". The judgement is recited as (1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 591. Held Thus:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Part-VII and Ss. 4 and 6 – Acquisition of land for construction of playground for students of a school run by a Society (Company) – Declaration under S. 6 issued after completing all formalities including execution of agreement for payment of cost of accused – Entire cost of acquisition was to be borne by the Society – Merely because notification under S. 4 stated that the land was needed for a public purpose it cannot be said that the acquisition was for a public purpose and not under Ch. VII for the Society – Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, Rr. 3 and 4 (4)  [003.08]

5 )  The facts of the above mentioned Amarnath Ashram Trust Society and the Judges' Housing Society in context elsewhere referred as Fraud Housing Society are same. This housing society had also executed an Agreement in accordance with Sec. 41 of LA Act claiming to be as a Pvt. Company on 4th January 1988 with Govt. of Karnataka. The Agreement [005.01]. The said society also accepts of having entered into / executed such Agreement in its writ petitions. Para 1 of [024.01] and Para 1 of [025.01]. The High Court of Karnataka also has held in its judgement agaist the said society that it has executed the Agreement. Last para of [026.04]. HON'BLE MR. R. P. SETHI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. R. BANNURMATH who pronouced this judgement are also members of the Society in context.

6 )  In the similar manner S. Rajendra Babu, who has built the house in the controversial judicial layout formed by this Fraud Housing Society, held in 1990 while he was a Judge of Karnataka High Court; such agreement as for company purpose and allowed the acquisition to be stopped. [003.05] He is at present Supreme Court Judge and is likely to be Chief Justice of India after the expiry of the tenure of the present Chief Justice of India Mr. V.N. Khare.

7 )  But on the contrary the said judge along with almost all judges of High Court of Karnataka have supressed this Agreement during the proceedings in High Court in the matter of WP No. 3995 of 1989, WP 6156 of 1989, Writ Appeal No. 5699 of 1997 and in the case of the Greatest Trial of High Court of Karnataka; in the sense that except 2 judges all others were Respondents; reported as ILR 1995 KAR 3139.

8 )  The Supreme Court in the matter of HMT House Builing Co.op. Society and Six other Housing Societies the land acquisition was quashed on various grounds including on the ground that the society had entered into Agreement with Govt. of Karnataka. Lands were ordered to be returned to landlords whether they have questioned the acquisition or not. Para 20 of ILR 1995 KAR 1962 [003.01]