{"id":566,"date":"1995-02-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-02-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995"},"modified":"2016-12-09T11:25:18","modified_gmt":"2016-12-09T05:55:18","slug":"h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995","title":{"rendered":"H.M.T. House Building Co-Op. … vs Syed Khader & Ors on 21 February, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
H.M.T. House Building Co-Op. … vs Syed Khader & Ors on 21 February, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 2244, \t\t 1995 SCC (2) 677<\/div>\n
Author: S N.P.<\/div>\n
Bench: Singh N.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nH.M.T. HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP.  SOCIETY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSYED KHADER & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT21\/02\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nSINGH N.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nSINGH N.P. (J)\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 AIR 2244\t\t  1995 SCC  (2) 677\n JT 1995 (2)   543\t  1995 SCALE  (2)58\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
1.   Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2\tThe  appellant\tis  a  House  Building\tCo-operative
\nSociety\t of  the employees of H.M.T. Limited,  a  Government
\nCompany\t (hereinafter  referred to as the  ‘Society’).\t The
\nSociety was registered for the purpose of acquiring land  by
\npurchase, mortgage, lease, exchange, gift or otherwise,\t and
\nto develop the same by construction of roads, drains, parks,
\nplay  grounds, schools, hospitals,  waterworks,\t post-office
\nand  other  amenities, required for  a\tresidential  housing
\ncolony.\t   The\tSociety\t has  been  registered\t under\t the
\nprovisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The\t Society submitted its housing scheme to  the  State
\nGovernment on 19.9.1984, for the purpose of acquisition
\n546<\/span>
\nof lands situated at Thindlu and Chikkabettahalli, for\t1001
\nmembers\t of the, Society.  It is the case of  the  appellant
\nthat  the Government being fully satisfied with\t the  scheme
\nsubmitted  by  the appellant approved the same by  an  order
\ndated  7.11.1984  and accorded approval\t for  initiation  of
\nacquisition  proceeding\t for the lands.\t  On  17.3.1988\t the
\nSociety entered into an agreement with the State  Government
\nagreeing  to the conditions for acquisition, as required  by
\nSections 39 and 40 of Part – VII of the Land Acquisition Act
\n(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).\t But on 12.7.1988  a
\nnotification  under  Section  4(1) of  the  Act\t was  issued
\nproposing to acquire lands for the Society to the extent  of
\n133.33\tacres in the aforesaid two villages, saying  it\t was
\nneeded for public purpose.\n<\/p>\n
4. The writ petitioners-respondents questioned the  validity
\nof the aforesaid notification under Section 4(1) of the\t Act
\non several grounds including that the acquisition itself was
\nnot  for  public purpose.  During the pendency of  the\twrit
\napplication  on\t II.  8.1989  the  State  Government  issued
\ndeclaration  under  Section 6(1) of the Act  in\t respect  of
\n99.01  acres of land in the aforesaid two villages  for\t the
\nappellant’s  Society,  On  19.3.1991  awards  were  made  in
\nrespect\t of the aforesaid lands.  However, on 18.6.1991\t the
\nHigh  Court  allowed the writ application  and\tquashed\t all
\nsteps taken in connection with acquisition thereof According
\nto the High Court, the acquisition was not for allotment  to
\nthe  bonafide members of the Society and as the Society\t had
\nindulged  in  commercial  venture for sales  of\t sites,\t the
\nacquisition of the lands under the provision of the Act\t was
\na colourable exercise of the power, The High Court was\talso
\nof  the\t opinion that procedure adopted by  the\t State\tGov-
\nernment for acquisition of lands for the Society was  likely
\nto defeat the schemes under Bangalore, Development Authority
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
5.From\tthe facts of the present case,, it appears  that  on
\n19.9.1984 the appellant society submitted the housing scheme
\nto the State Government.  On 1.2.1985 the appellant  society
\nentered\t into  an  agreement with  M\/s\tS.R.  Constructions,
\nrespondent  No.\t 11  in\t which\tthe  appellant\tsociety\t was
\ndescribed  as  First  party and M\/s  S.R.  Constructions  as
\nSecond party.  The relevant parts whereof are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t       “2.  WHEREAS THE FIRST PARTY is a  registered
\n\t      House Building Co-operative Society under\t the
\n\t      Karnataka\t Co-op.\t  Societies  Act,  its\tmain
\n\t      object being to procure lands around Bangalore
\n\t      and forming layouts and sites to cater to\t the
\n\t      needs  of\t its members by alloting  sites\t for
\n\t      purposes of construction of dwelling houses on
\n\t      the   sites  and\tthe  Second  Party   is\t  an
\n\t      Architects,   Engineers,\tBuilders  &   Layout
\n\t      Contractors.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       3.AND WHEREAS THE SECOND PARTY approached the
\n\t      First  Party and offered to assist  the  First
\n\t      Party   to   secure  lands  in   Thindlu\t and
\n\t      Chikkabettahally\tvillages to the extent of 80
\n\t      Acres   approximately  as\t specified  in\t the
\n\t      Annexures\t to  this Agreement and to  get\t the
\n\t      lands  acquired in favour of the\tFirst  Party
\n\t      and  further  offered to take up the  work  of
\n\t      layout  and  formation  of  sites\t so   formed
\n\t      through  the  B.D.A., and\/or  from  any  other
\n\t      competent authority.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       4 AND WHEREAS at on a representation from the
\n\t      FIRST PARTY the SECOND PARTY with his  efforts
\n\t      has secured directions from Revenue Secretary,
\n\t      Government of Karnataka addressed to
\n547<\/span>
\nthe Special D. C, Bangalore to issue Notification under Sec.
\n4(1)  of Land Acquisition Act in favour of the\tFirst  Party
\nSociety vide No. RD.257 AQB 84 dated 7.11.1984.
\nThe  Second Party shall secure to the First Party  lands  at
\nThindlu\t and  Chikkabettahally to an extent of 80  acres  as
\nspecified  in the annexures to this agreement to begin\twith
\nand  such further extent as the First Party may require\t and
\nshall  arrange\tfor agreements to be  executed\tbetween\t the
\nowners of such lands and the First Party within a period  of
\n2-3  months from this day to facilitate the  acquisition  of
\nlands in favour of the First Party.  The Second Party hereby
\nagrees strictly to conform and act according to the terms of
\nthis agreement.\n<\/p>\n
The Second Party who has already entered into sale agreement
\nwith  the  owners  of land (the details of  the\t land  fully
\ndescribed  in the schedule to this agreement) has agreed  to
\nnegotiate  and ensure the acquisition of the land in  favour
\nof First Party.\n<\/p>\n
The   First  Party  after  inspection  of  the\t lands\t and
\ndiscussions  with  the Second Party has agreed to  have\t the
\nlands from -the owners acquired for the First Party  subject
\nto the other Services to be rendered by the Second Party  as
\nagreed to hereinafter.\n<\/p>\n
NOW  THIS  AGREEMENT spells out the  terms  and\t conditions,
\nrights.\t Powers, obligations and liabilities of the  parties
\nto this agreement.\n<\/p>\n
1.   It is agreed that the Second Party shall carry out\t the
\nfollowing works for the First Party in respect of the  lands
\nto be acquired for the First Party.\n<\/p>\n
2.   It\t is  agreed  that  in respect of  the  lands  to  be
\nacquired  for  the  First  Party  the  Second  Party   shall
\nundertake to do the following:\n<\/p>\n
(a)  To\t get Notification u\/s 4(1) of the  Land\t Acquisition
\nAct  issued for acquisition of the required extent  of\tland
\nmentioned in the annexure for the First Party in Thindlu and
\nChikkabettahally Villages, in one continuous plot and  enter
\ninto  necessary\t agreements  with the  owners  of  the\tland
\nconfirming that the lands are free from encumbrance and that
\nthere  are  no\tclaim on the lands and\tthat  they  have  no
\nobjection for the acquisition proceedings in respect of\t the
\nland;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  To get the Notification as required under Section\t4(i)
\nto be issued within 3 months from the date of agreement with
\nland owners.\n<\/p>\n
(c)  To\t get the Enquiry as required under Section  5(1)  of
\nthe  Land  Acquisition Act by proper  authorities  completed
\nwithin\t34  months  from the date  of  agreement  with\tland
\nowners;\n<\/p>\n
(d)  To\t get  the Notification as required u\/s 6(1)  of\t the
\nLand  Acquisition Act within 10 months from the date of\t the
\nAgreement;\n<\/p>\n
(e)  To\t secure possession of the land from the land  owners
\nto  the FirstParty after all the formalities of\t acquisition
\nare completed and orders passed acquiring the lands for\t the
\nFirst Party within 12 months from the date of the agreement;\n<\/p>\n
(f)  To get the layout plan approved and sanctioned and also
\npermission  to execute the civil portion of the layout\twork
\ncomprising  of formation of roads, drains culverts etc.,  by
\nthe  B.D.A.  within  2\tmonths from  the  date\tof  securing
\npossession of lands;\n<\/p>\n
\t      548<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (g)   Executing the civil portion of the\tlay-
\n\t      out  work\t comprising of formation  of  roads,
\n\t      drain,  culverts\tetc,, as  specified  by\t the
\n\t      B.D.A.   according  to  the  sanctioned\tplan
\n\t      specifications  and under supervision  of\t the
\n\t      B.D.A. 8 months of the sanction of layout plan
\n\t      and receipt of work order from the B.D.A.\t for
\n\t      the layout work;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (h)\t Securing  the\tpermission\tfrom
\n\t      B.D.A.to\texecute the layout work under  their
\n\t      supervision  and\tthe  layout  comprising\t  of
\n\t      laying  of water supplying sewerage lines\t and
\n\t      chip carpeting which is agreed to be completed
\n\t      within 6 months after the completion of  civil
\n\t      portion layout;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)Executing  and\t doing all other  acts,\t and
\n\t      things  necessary\t for  forming  full  fledged
\n\t      layout  of residential building sites  on\t the
\n\t      lands  required complete in all  respects\t fit
\n\t      and  ready for construction of houses  on\t the
\n\t      completion of civil portion of lay out works;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (j)To  get  all the sites\t released  from\t the
\n\t      B.D.A or any other competent authority  within
\n\t      two months of completion of layout works.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.    The\t  second   party  has\tagrred\t and
\n\t      undertaken  to  take up  the  above  mentioned
\n\t      works  and has agreed  to carry out the  works
\n\t      within  245 months time from the date of\tthis
\n\t      agreement\t subject to any delay caused at\t the
\n\t      B.D.A  and other authorities in procuring\t the
\n\t      land,  sanctioning or issuing layout plan\t and
\n\t      work order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4.   First  first party agrees to pay  to\t the
\n\t      second party amount calculated at Rs.    112\/-
\n\t      per  Sq.\tYard based an the actual sital\tarea
\n\t      (inclusive  of the cost of the  land  acquired
\n\t      and  the compensation payable  thereto  either
\n\t      under  the award or any enhanced\tcompensation
\n\t      under   any  proceedings,\t security  fee\t and
\n\t      amounts payable to the B.D.A. towards supervi-
\n\t      sion  charges, chip carpeting, tree  planting,
\n\t      maintenance  etc., amount and  sewerage  mains
\n\t      within the layout amount payable to K.E.B. for
\n\t      electricity  and\tthe  cost of  layout  to  be
\n\t      deposited\t with B.D.A.) excluding the cost  of
\n\t      the area to be left for roads, drains and\t the
\n\t      civic  amenities according to the layout\tplan
\n\t      approved by B.D.A.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      …………………  [Emphasis supplied]\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6. In the schedule of the said agreement, the details of the
\nlands, which have been acquired and which am subject  matter
\nof controversy. have been given.\n<\/p>\n
7.   It further appears that agreements were also   executed
\nin favour of the appellant    society  by the  land  holders
\nsome of whom   are writ petitioners – respondents,  agreeing
\nto  sell  their lands to the appellant society or  to  their
\nnominee.  In such agreements, the land holders said that the
\nterms  and conditions of the entered into between  M\/s\tS.R.
\nConstrutions and the appellant society won totally agreeable
\nto  them including the terms of payment and time limit\tThey
\nalso  to  receive the sale consideration  through  M\/s\tS.R.
\nConstructions  (respondent  No.\t 11) and  admitted  to\thave
\nreceived advance an behalf of the appellant society from M\/S
\nS.R.  Constructions.   They  further  agreed  that  if\t the
\nGovernment intended to acquire the land for the housing pur-
\npose  of  the  appellant society, they will  agree  to\tgive
\nconsent to notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
8.Before the High Court, on behalf of the writ\tpetitioners,
\nit was pointed that responded No.11, M\/S S.R. Construc-\n<\/p>\n
549<\/span><\/p>\n
tions  had  played dubious role of a middle man.   The\tsaid
\nrespondent entered into agreement with the land holders\t for
\nsale  of  their lands by negotiation, At the  same  time  it
\nentered into an agreement with the appellant society to\t get
\nnotifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) issued by the ap-
\npropriate  Government  acquiring  those\t lands\tthrough\t the
\nprocedure  prescribed under the Act.  In this  process,\t the
\nsaid  respondent  No.  II has  influenced  the\texercise  of
\nstatutory power by the appropriate Government, for the\thuge
\namount paid by the appellant society to the said  respondent
\nas   consideration  for\t the  same.   In  this\t background,
\naccording  to the writ petitioners, it cannot be  held\tthat
\nthe appropriate Government has exercised its own independent
\ndiscretion,  that the lands in question were needed for\t any
\npublic purpose.\t In other words, the exercise of the  statu-
\ntory  power under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act  is\t not
\nbased  on objective considerations of the materials, on\t the
\nbasis of which the appropriate Government could have  formed
\nan  opinion  that  the lands of the  writ  petitioners\twere
\nrequired  for  public  purpose and because of  that  it\t was
\nnecessary to acquire the same.\n<\/p>\n
9. The High Court came to the conclusion, on this question.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  agents  of each of these  societies\t had
\n\t      been  paid heavy amounts in  consideration  of
\n\t      which  they  were required, to  influence\t the
\n\t      Government and to get the preliminary and\t the
\n\t      final notifications acquiring large extent  of
\n\t      lands  from the Government.  The\tdecision  of
\n\t      the  Government  to  acquire  the\t lands\t was
\n\t      brought about by the influence of such  agents
\n\t      and”carriers”  between the Government and\t the
\n\t      society  concerned     and  therefore  such  a
\n\t      decision\tis  liable to be set  aside  on\t the
\n\t      ground  that  it is a case of  colourable\t ex-
\n\t      ercise  of power and suffers from\t legal\tmala
\n\t      hides,  in  that, though\tthe  acquisition  is
\n\t      stated  to be for public purpose, in  reality,
\n\t      the  acquisition is substantially not for\t the
\n\t\t\t    purpose of bona fide housing schemes.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.From\t the judgment of the High Court, it further  appears
\nthat  not only the acquisition of lands in favour  of  seven
\nHousing Co-operative Societies, who were respondents to\t the
\ndifferent Writ Petitions, but also the acquisition of  lands
\nin favour of more than one hundred housing societies,  which
\nhad  sprung  up within the Bangalore  Metropolitan  Planning
\nArea the matter of public debate and criticism.\t As a result
\nof  which  a  statutory\t enquiry under\tSection\t 64  of\t the
\nKarnataka  Co-operative\t Societies Act was directed  by\t the
\nRegistrar of Co-operative Societies. me enquiry was held  by
\nShri G.V.K.Rao, the Controller of Weights and Measures,\t who
\nsubmitted  his\tReport\tin  respect  of\t different   housing
\nsocieties including the appellant Society.  ‘The said Report
\nwas  produced before the High Court. in the Report,  it\t has
\nbeen  pointed  out  that  most\tpredominant   irregularities
\ncommitted  by  many  of\t the Societies\twas  in\t respect  of
\nadmission  on  members.\t In many  cases\t the  committees  of
\nmanagement did not consider the applications for  membership
\nand  there was no proper resolutions specifying the  persons
\nwho  were admitted as members of the society.  There was  no
\nrecord\ton which date the said members were admitted by\t the
\ndifferent Housing Co-operative Societies.  It was also\tsaid
\nin the Report that the societies admitted persons. who\twere
\nnot eligible to become members.\t In respect of the appellant
\nsociety, it was said  in the Report, which has been referred
\nto by the High Court in its judgment that
\n550<\/span>
\nmembership was open to any person above 18 years of age\t and
\nit left scope for admitting non-employees of HMT as members.
\nFrom  the scrutiny of the applications, it  transpired\tthat
\nmany ‘who had been admitted as members, were neither employ-
\nees of the HMT nor residents within the jurisdiction of\t the
\nSociety.   It  was also pointed out that the  appellant\t had
\nentered\t into  an  agreement  with  the\t Estate\t Agent\tS.R.
\nConstructions and had paid a total amount of  Rs.92,52,938\/-
\nto  the said agent and Rs.35 lakhs to special Land  Acquisi-
\ntion  Officer.\tThe conclusion in respect of  the  appellant
\nsociety in the Report is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“The  Society has admitted large number of persons  who\t are
\nneither\t employees of HMT nor residents of the\tjurisdiction
\nof  the\t Society.  All of them are to be  removed  from\t the
\nrolls  of  the Society.\t The Society grants  the  membership
\nwithout\t collecting the sufficient share amount and in\tmany
\ncases  only  the  single share was  taken  by  the  members,
\nwhereas\t it was necessary for members to take  atleast\tfive
\nshares.\t   The\tcommittee  solely  responsible\t for   these
\nirregularities.\t Secondly, the Society made huge advances to
\nthe  agents  without  commensurate amount  of  guarantee  or
\nsecurity  and  without any work being done  by\tthe  agents.
\nThere  is atleast Rs.1.6 crores which has been\tadvanced  to
\nthe agents without any work.The committee in general and the
\nHon.  Secretary of the Society in particular is\t responsible
\nfor these irregularities”.\n<\/p>\n
 Taking\t  into\t consideration\tall  the   facts   and\t the
\ncircumstances\tof   the  case\tincluding  the\t report\t  of
\nMr.G.V.K.Rao, the High Court observed.\n<\/p>\n
“Before\t concluding,  it is necessary  to  observe  that  as
\npointed out in the report of G.V.K. Rao, it is on account of
\nunlimited  territorial jurisdiction and vague provisions  as
\nto  who could become members and associate members and\talso
\nas to what are the rights of associate members, it has\tbeen
\npossible for many of the societies to manipulate  membership
\nin  such  a way as to enroll all those who are\tdesirous  of
\npurchasing  sites  as  also those who  do  not\tpossess\t the
\nterritorial or other qualification as members”.
\nIt was said that it was necessary that the Government should
\nframe rules for according previous approval for\t acquisition
\nof  lands for the housing co-operative societies inter\talia
\nprescribing  the essential requirements of a housing  scheme
\nand also prescribing the procedure for inquiry and report to
\naid  the Government to come to the conclusion as to  whether
\nthe  previous  approval\t should\t be  given  for\t any  scheme
\nprepared  by  any  of the  house  building  societies  which
\nrequires the Government to acquire any land for carrying out
\nany such scheme.\n<\/p>\n
11.  By\t Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act  68  of
\n1984)  several amendments have been introduced in  the\tsaid
\nAct  including\tin  the\t definition  “corporation  owned  or
\ncontrolled  by the State”, “Company” and  “public  purpose”.
\nThe  aforesaid amendments came into force with\teffect\tfrom
\n24.9.1984. Section 3(cc) defines the expression “corporation
\nowned or controlled by the State” :\n<\/p>\n
“3(cc) – the expression “corporation  owned or controlled by
\nthe State” means any body corporate established by     or
\nunder a Central. Provincialor State  Act. and includes\ta
\nGovernment company  as defined in Section 617of\t    the
\nCompanies Act, 1956, a society registeredunder\t   the
\nSocieties Act, 1860, orunder any
\n551<\/span>
\n\t      corresponding   law  for\tthe  time  being  in
\n\t      force, in a State, being a society established
\n\t      or  administered\t by  Government\t and  a\t co-\n<\/p>\n
\t      operative\t society within the meaning  of\t any
\n\t      law relating to co-operative societies fix the
\n\t      time being in force in any State, being a\t co-
\n\t      operative\t society  in  which  not  less\tthan
\n\t      fifty-one\t per  centum  of  the  paidup  share
\n\t      capital  is held by the Central Government  or
\n\t      by  any State Government ,or  Governments,  or
\n\t      partly by the Central Government and partly by
\n\t      one or more State Governments.\n<\/p>\n
12.  The  expression ‘Company’ has been defined\t in  Section
\n3(e) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “3(e)- the expression “Company” means-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   a Company as defined in Section 3 of the
\n\t      Companies\t Act, 1956, other than a  Government
\n\t      company referred to in clause (cc);<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)a  society registered under the  Societies
\n\t      Registration   Act,   1860,   or\t under\t any
\n\t\t\t    corresponding  law for the time being in  forc
\ne
\n\t      in  a State, other than a society referred  to
\n\t      in clause (cc);\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iii)a cooperative society within the  meaning
\n\t      of  any law relating to cooperative  societies
\n\t      for  the\ttime being in force  in\t any  State,
\n\t      other than a co-operative society referred  to
\n\t      in clause (cc).”\n<\/p>\n
133.\t  The expression “public purpose” has\t  been
\ndefined in Section 3(f) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t       “3(f)-  the  expression\t“public\t purpose   ”
\n\t      includes –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   the\t provision of village-sites, or\t the
\n\t      extension, planned development or\t improvement
\n\t      of existing village-sites;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)the  provision of land for town  or  rural
\n\t      planning;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii)the\t provision  of\tland   for   planned
\n\t      development  of  land  from  public  funds  in
\n\t      pursuance\t  of   any  scheme  or\t policy\t  of
\n\t      Government and subsequent disposal thereof  in
\n\t      whole  or\t in  part by  lease,  assignment  or
\n\t      outright\tsale  with the\tobject\tof  securing
\n\t      further development as planned;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iv)the  provision of land for  a\t corporation
\n\t      owned or controlled by the State;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (v)   the\t provision of land  for\t residential
\n\t      purposes to the poor or landless or to persons
\n\t      residing\t in   areas  affected\tby   natural
\n\t      calamities,   or\tto  persons   displaced\t  or
\n\t      affected\tby reason of the  implementation  of
\n\t      any scheme undertaken by Government  any local
\n\t      authority or a corporation owned or controlled
\n\t      by the State;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (vi)    the    provision\t  of\tland\t for
\n\t      carrying out any educational, housing,  health
\n\t      or   slum\t  clearance  scheme   sponsored\t  by
\n\t      Government or by any authority established  by
\n\t      Government  for carrying out any such  scheme,
\n\t      or with the. prior approval of the appropriate
\n\t      Government, by a local authority, or a society
\n\t      registered  under the  Societies\tRegistration
\n\t      Act, 1860, or under any corresponding law\t for
\n\t      the  time being in force in a State, or a\t co-
\n\t      operative\t society within the meaning  of\t any
\n\t      law relating to co-operative societies for the
\n\t      Wm.being in force in any State;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (vii)the\tprovision  of  land  for  any  other
\n\t      scheme of development sponsored by Government,
\n\t      or, with the prior approval of the appropriate
\n\t      Government, by a local authority;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      552<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (viii)the\t  provision  of\t any   premises\t  or
\n\t      building for locating a public office,
\n\t      but  does not include acquisition of land\t for
\n\t      Companies.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.  There is no dispute that the Society with which we\t are
\nconcerned   shall   not\t be  covered   by   the\t  expression
\n“corporation owned or controlled by the State”, because\t the
\nsaid expression shall include a co-operative society,  being
\na co-operative society in which not less than 51 per  centum
\nof  the\t paid-up  share\t capital  is  held  by\tthe  Central
\nGovernment,  or by any State Government or  Governments,  or
\npartly\tby the Central Government and partly by one or\tmore
\nState Governments.\n<\/p>\n
15.  The substituted definition of the expression  “Company”
\nin  Section 3(e)(iii) will certainly include  the  appellant
\nsociety.   The\tsubstituted  definition\t of  the  expression
\n“Company”  shall  include cooperative  society,\t within\t the
\nmeaning\t of any law relating to cooperative societies  other
\nthan  those referred to in clause (cc) of Section 3  of\t the
\nAct.  Such co-operative society shall be deemed to be a com-
\npany,  to  which  provisions  of  Chapter  VII\trelating  to
\nacquisition of land for company shall be applicable.\n<\/p>\n
16. In view of the substituted definition of the  expression
\n“public\t purpose”,  in Section 3(f)(vi), the  provision\t for
\ncarrying out any housing scheme sponsored by die  Government
\nor  by any authority established by Government for  carrying
\nout  any  such\tscheme\tshall be  deemed  to  be  a  “public
\npurpose”.   It further says that the provision of  land\t for
\ncarrying  out any housing scheme with prior approval of\t the
\nState Government by a cooperative society within the meaning
\nof  any law relating to co-operative societies for the\ttime
\nbeing in force in any State, shall be deemed to be a “public
\npurpose”.   As\tsuch for any  housing  co-operative  society
\nlands  can  be\tacquired  by  the  appropriate\t Government,
\ntreating  the  same as acquisition for the  public  purpose.
\nBut, in that event, there has to be a prior approval of such
\nscheme\tby the appropriate Government.\tWhen the  lands\t arc
\nacquired for any co-operative society with prior approval of
\nthe scheme by the State Government, there is no question  of
\napplication  of\t the provisions of Part _ VII  of  the\tAct.
\nSuch acquisition shall be on the mode of acquisition by\t the
\nappropriate Government for any public purpose.\n<\/p>\n
17.  If\t lands\tarc acquired  for  any\tcooperative  society
\ntreating  it to be a company within the meaning\t of  Section
\n3(e), then in view of Section 39 of the.  Act the provisions
\nof  Sections 6 to 16 and Sections 18 to 37 shall not be\t put
\nin force unless there is previous consent of the appropriate
\nGovernment,  and  the co-operative society has\texecuted  an
\nagreement.  The consent required under Section 39 of the Act
\nhas to be given by die appropriate Government only after the
\nconditions  mentioned  in Section 40  arc  fulfilled.\tSub-
\nsection\t (1)  of  Section  40, of  the\tAct  prescribes\t the
\nconditions:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “40.  Previous enquiry. –<\/p>\n
\t      (1)Such consent shall not be given unless\t the
\n\t      appropriate Government be satisfied, either on
\n\t\t\t    the report of the Collector under Section  5-A
\n,
\n\t      Subsection  (2),\tor  by an  enquiry  held  as
\n\t      hereinafter provided,-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   that  the purpose of the acquisition  is
\n\t      to  obtain land for the erection\tor  dwelling
\n\t      houses for workmen
\n\t      553<\/span>
\n\t      employed\tby the Company or for the  provision
\n\t      of amenities directly connected therewith, or
\n\t      (aa)  that such acquisition is needed for\t the
\n\t      construction  of some building or work  for  a
\n\t      Company  which is engaged or is  taking  steps
\n\t      for  engaging itself in any industry  or\twork
\n\t      which is for a public purpose, or\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   that such acquisition is needed for\t the
\n\t      construction of some work, and that such\twork
\n\t      is likely to prove useful to, the public.”\n<\/p>\n
18.  In view of sub-section (1) of Section 40, before giving
\na  consent  the appropriate Government has to  be  satisfied
\nthat  the purpose of acquisition is for any of the  purposes
\nmentioned in clauses (a), (aa) and (b) of the said  Section.
\nClause\t(a) clearly links the object of acquisition for\t the
\nerection  of  dwelling houses for workmen  employed  by\t the
\nCompany\t or to provide\tamenities directly connected  there-
\nwith.  Clause (aa) requires that such acquisition is  needed
\nfor the construction of some building or work for a  Company
\nwhich is engaged itself in any industry or work which is for
\na public purpose.  Similarly, clause (b) also requires\tthat
\nacquisition  should  be for the construction of\t some  work,
\nwhich is likely to prove useful to the public.\tSection 44-A
\nof the Act,is relevant:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “44-A.   Restriction  an\ttransfer,  etc.\t -No
\n\t      Company  for which any land is acquired  under
\n\t      this  Part shall be entitled to  transfer\t the
\n\t      said  land  or  any  part\t thereof  by   sale,
\n\t      mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except with
\n\t      the  previous  sanction  of  the\t appropriate
\n\t      Government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
19.  In\t view  of  Section  44-A,  no  company\/co-operativel
\nsociety for which the land has been acquired under the\tsaid
\nPart  – VII shall be entitled to transfer the said  land  or
\nany part thereof by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise
\nexcept with the previous sanction of the appropriate Govern-
\nment.\tIt need not be pointed out that the framers  of\t the
\nAct have put several conditions and restrictions in  respect
\nof  acquisition of land for a- company\/co-operative  society
\nif the lands are acquired under Part – VII of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
20.  Now  the  question\t which is to be answered  is  as  to
\nwhether\t in  view  of the  definition  of  “public  purpose”
\nintroduced  by\tthe  aforesaid amending Act 68\tof  1984  in
\nSection\t 3(f)(vi), is it open to the appropriate  Government
\nto  acquire land for cooperative society for housing  scheme
\nwithOut\t making\t proper\t enquiry about the  members  of\t the
\nSociety\t and  without  putting\tsuch  housing\tco-operative
\nsociety\t to term in respect of nature of  construction,\t the
\narea  to  be  alloted to the  members  and  restrictions  on
\ntransfer thereof?\n<\/p>\n
21.  According\tto  us, in Section 3(f)(vi)  the  expression
\n“housing”  has been.used along with educational\t and  health
\nschemes.  As such the housing scheme contemplated by Section
\n3(f)(vi) shall be such housing scheme which shall serve\t the
\nmaximum\t number\t of members of the  society.   Such  housing
\nscheme should prove to be useful to the public.\t That is why
\nthe Parliament while introducing a new definition of “public
\npurpose”, said that any scheme submitted by any\t cooperative
\nsociety relating to housing, must receive prior approval  of
\nthe appropriate Government and then only the acquisition  of
\nthe  land  for\tsuch scheme can be held\t to  be\t for  public
\npurpose.  If requirement of Section
\n554<\/span>
\n3(f)(vi)  is  not  strictly  enforced,\tevery  housing\t co-
\noperative society shall approach the appropriate  Government
\nfor  acquisition  by applying Section  3(f)(vi)\t instead  of
\npursuing the acquisition under Part VII of the Act which has
\nbecome\tmore rigorous and restrictive.\tIn this\t background,
\nit  has\t to  be held that the prior  approval,\trequired  by
\nSection 3(f)(vi), of the appropriate Government is not\tjust
\na formality; it is a condition precedent to the exercise  of
\nthe power of acquisition by the appropriate Government for a
\nhousing scheme of a co-operative society.\n<\/p>\n
22.  In the present case, a hybrid procedure appears to have
\nbeen  followed.\t  Initially, the appellant  society  through
\nM\/s.   S.R. Constructions purported to acquire the lands  by
\nnegotiation  and sale by the land holders.  Then from  terms
\nof  the\t agreement  dated 17.3.1988,  it  appears  that\t the
\nprocedure  prescribed in Part – VII was to be  followed\t and
\nthe  lands were to be acquired at the cost of the  appellant
\nsociety treating it to be a “company”.\tThe allegation\tmade
\non  behalf of the appellant society that the housing  scheme
\nhad been approved by the appropriate Government on 7.11.1984
\nshall  not  be\tdeemed to be a\tprior  approval\t within\t the
\nmeaning\t of  Section 3(f)(vi) but an order  giving  previous
\nconsent\t as required by Section 39 of Part VII of  the\tAct.
\nIn  the agreement dated 17.3.1988 it has  been\tspecifically
\nstated “And whereas the Government having caused inquiry  to
\nbe  made in conformity .with the provisions of the said\t Act
\nand  being  satisfied as a result of such inquiry  that\t the
\nacquisition  of\t the  said land is needed  for\tthe  purpose
\nreferred  to  above has consented to the provisions  of\t the
\nsaid  Act being in force in order to acquire the  said\tland
\nfor  the  benefit  of the society members to  enter  in\t the
\nagreement   hereinafter\t contained  with  the\tGovernment”.
\n[emphasis  supplied]  But, ultimately, the lands  have\tbeen
\nacquired  on behalf of the appropriate\tGovernment  treating
\nthe  requirement  of the appellant society as for  a  public
\npurpose\t within\t the  meaning of  Section  3(f)(vi),  It  is
\nsurprising  as to how respondent M\/s S.R. Constructions\t en-
\ntered into agreement with the appellant society assuring  it
\nthat the lands, details of which were given in the agreement
\nitself,\t shall\tbe  acquired  by  the  State  Government  by
\nfollowing  the procedure of Sections 4(1) and 6(1)  and\t for
\nthis,  more than one crore of rupees was paid to M\/s.\tS.R.
\nConstructions (respondent No. 11).\n<\/p>\n
23.Mr.\tG,.  Ramaswami, learned senior counsel appearing  on
\nbehalf\tof the appellant, submitted that merely because\t the
\nappellant  society  had\t entered  into\tan  agreement\twith
\nrespondent No. 11, M\/s S.R.Constructions in which the latter
\nfor the consideration paid to it had assured that the  lands
\nin  question shall be acquired by the State  Government,  no
\nadverse inference should be drawn because that may amount to
\na tall claim made on behalf of M\/s S.R. Constructions in the
\nagreements  He\tpointed\t out that  the\tnotifications  under
\nSections  4(1)\tand 6(1) have been issued  beyond  the\ttime
\nstipulated  in the agreement and as such, it should be\theld
\nthat the State Government has exercised its statutory  power
\nfor  acquisition of the lands in normal course,\t only  after
\ntaking\tall  facts  and\t circumstances\tinto  consideration.
\nThere  is  no  dispute\tthat in\t terms\tof  agreement  dated
\n1.2.1985 payments have been made by the appellant society to
\nM\/s S.R. Constructions.\t This circumstance alone goes a long
\nway  to support the contention of the writ petitioners\tthat
\ntheir lands have
\n555<\/span>
\nnot  been  acquired  in\t normal course\tor  for\t any  public
\npurpose.   In  spite  of the  repeated\tquery,\tthe  learned
\ncounsel appearing for the appellant society could not  point
\nout  or\t produce  any order of the  State  Government  under
\nSection\t 3(f)(vi)  of the Act granting\tprior  approval\t and
\nprescribing  conditions and restrictions in respect  of\t the
\nuse  of\t the lands which were to be acquired  for  a  public
\npurpose.  There is no restriction or bar on the part of\t the
\nappellant  society on carving out the size of the  plots  or
\nthe  manner of allotment or in respect of construction\tover
\nthe same.  That is why the framers of the Act have  required
\nthe  appropriate Government to grant prior approval  of\t any
\nhousing\t scheme presented by any cooperative society  before
\nthe  lands  are\t acquired  treating  such  requirement\t and
\nacquisition for public purpose.\t It is incumbent on part  of
\nthe  appropriate  government  while  granting  approval\t  to
\nexamine different aspects of the matter so that it may serve
\nthe  public interest and not the interest of few who can  as
\nwell  afford  to acquire such lands by negotiation  in\topen
\nmarket.\t  According  to\t us, the State\tGovernment  has\t not
\ngranted\t the prior approval in terms of Section 3(f) of\t the
\nAct  to\t the housing scheme in question.   The\tpower  under
\nSections  4(1)\tand 6(1) of the Act has been  exercised\t for
\nextraneous consideration and at the instance of the persons,
\nwho had no role in the decision making process – whether the
\nacquisition  of the lands in question shall be for a  public
\npurpose.   This\t itself\t is  enough  to\t vitiate  the  whole
\nacquisition proceeding and render the same as invalid.\n<\/p>\n
24.  In\t the  present case there has been  contravention  of
\nSection\t 3(f)  (vi) of the Act in as much as  there  was  no
\nprior  approval of the State Government as required  by\t the
\nsaid Section before steps for acquisition of the lands\twere
\ntaken.\t The report of Shri G.K.V. Rao points out as to\t how
\nthe  appellant society admitted large number of\t persons  as
\nmembers\t who cannot be held to be genuine members, the\tsole
\nobject\tbeing  to transfer the lands  acquired\tfor  ‘public
\npurpose’,  to  outsiders  as  part  of\tcommercial  venture,
\nundertaken  by the office bearer of the\t appellant  society.
\nWe are in agreement with the finding of the High Court\tthat
\nthe  statutory notifications issued under Sections 4(1)\t and
\n6(1)  of the Act have been issued due to the role played  by
\nM\/s S.R. Constructions, respondent No. 11. On the  materials
\non  record,  High  Court  was justified\t in  coming  to\t the
\nconclusion that the proceedings for acquisition of the lands
\nhad  not  been initiated because the  State  Government\t was
\nsatisfied  about the existence of the public purpose but  at
\nthe instance of agent who had collected more than a crore of
\nrupees\tfor  getting the lands acquired by  the\t State\tGov-
\nernment.\n<\/p>\n
25.  The  appeals  arc accordingly dismissed.\tBut  in\t the
\ncircumstances  of  the case there shall be no orders  as  to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
26.  We\t direct\t that as a result of quashing  of  the\tland
\nacquisition  proceedings  including  the  notifications\t  as
\naforesaid, the possession of the lands shall be restored  to
\nthe respective land owners irrespective of the fact  whether
\nthey  had challenged the acquisition of their lands or\tnot.
\nOn  restoration\t of the possession to the land\towners\tthey
\nshall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or
\notherwise  in  respect of their lands.\tThe  appellant,\t the
\nrespondents and the State Government including all concerned
\nauthorities\/persons shall implement the afore-\n<\/p>\n
556<\/span><\/p>\n
said directions at an early date.\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
H.M.T. House Building Co-operative Society
\nv.\n<\/p>\n
M. Venkataswamappa & Ors.\n<\/p>\n
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.<\/p>\n
<\/a> 1155057 OF 1991
\nWITH
\n(SLP  (Civil) Nos. 12104-07, 12600-03,\t1315080,  18297-300,
\n13114,\t13339,\t12032-37, 12535-37 of 1991  and…  \/92\t (CC
\n16194\/92).<\/p>\n
27.  connected\tAppeal Nos. 301 119 of 1994 (arising out  of
\nS.L.P.(C)  Nos. 11482-90 of 1991) H.M.T. House Building\t Co-
\nop.   Society  v.  Syed\t Khader &  Ors,<\/a>\t have  already\tbeen
\ndisposed  of by a reasoned judgment.  The reasons given\t for
\ndismissing  the said appeals are equally applicable  in\t the
\nfacts  and circumstances or the present case.\tAccordingly,
\nthese  special leave petitions filed on behalf of  the\tsame
\nHouse  Building\t Co-operative  Society\tare  dismissed.\t  No
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
28.  In the appeals arising out of SLP (C)   Nos.   11482-90
\nof 1991, after the dismissal of the appeals a direction\t has
\nbeen  given  that as a result of the quashing of  the\tland
\nacquisition  proceedings  including  the  notifications\t  in
\nquestion,  the possession of the land shall be\trestored  to
\nthe respective land owners irrespective of the fact  whether
\nthey  had challenged the acquisition of their lands or\tnot.
\nA  further direction has been given that on  restoration  of
\nthe  possession\t to the land owners, they shall\t refund\t the
\namounts\t received  by them as compensation or  otherwise  in
\nrespect\t of their lands.  We issue a similar direction\teven
\nin this case.  The petitioner, the respondents and the State
\nGovernment including all concerned authorities\/persons shall
\nimplement the aforesaid directions at an early date.
\nVyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.
\nv.\n<\/p>\n
Narayana Reddy and Ors. etc. etc,
\nSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C)NOS. 12104 07, 12600-03,  13150-80,
\n18297-300 OF 1991.\n<\/p>\n
29.  Lands  on\tbasis  of  the\tnotifications  issued  under
\nSections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, had been
\nacquired for the petitioner-House Building Society, treating
\nthe  said acquisition to be for a public purpose.  No  order
\nof  the\t State Government as required  by  Section  3(f)(vi)
\ngranting  prior\t approval for acquisition of  the  lands  in
\nquestion  for the housing scheme of  the  petitioner-society
\nhas been produced.  The petitioner society had also  entered
\ninto  an agreement with the contractor more or less  on\t the
\nsame terms and conditions as was in the case of H.M.T. House
\nBuilding  Co-operative Society, assuring that the  lands  in
\nquestion  shall\t be acquired on basis of  the  notifications
\nissued by the State Government under Sections 4(1) and\t6(1)
\nof  the\t Act.  The High Court in its impugned  judgment\t has
\ngiven details of the allegations made against the petitioner
\nsociety regarding collection of huge amounts from  different
\napplicants for site who were not even members of the society
\nand  how  the  society had entered into\t an  agreement\twith
\nagents, who with their influence have got the Ian& acquired.
\nThe High Court has also referred to an
\n557<\/span>
\nadvertisement  issued  by the  petitioner  society  inviting
\npersons who want to have mansions in the city of  Bangalore.
\nIt  also  gave the name and address of a  representative  at
\nDubai.\tOn basis of the aforesaid materials, the High  Court
\nhas come to the conclusion that the Society itself was not a
\nbona  fide House Building Society.  The High Court has\talso
\nrecorded  a  finding that the notifications  under  Sections
\n4(1) and 6(1) of the Act had been issued at the instance  of
\nthe agents appointed by the petitioner society, to whom huge
\namounts\t had  been paid for influencing\t the  Government  to
\nissue the aforesaid notifications.  Mr. Ramaswamy, appearing
\nfor  the  petitioner society purported to  distinguish\tthis
\ncase  on  facts from the case of  H.M.T.House  Building\t Co-
\noperative  Society.  But according to us, the facts  of\t the
\npresent case are similar to the case of H.M.T.House Building
\nCo-operative Society and there is no scope to interfere with
\nthe  order  of the High Court,\tquashing  the  notifications
\nunder  Sections\t 4(1) and 6(1).\t  Accordingly,\tthe  special
\nleave  petitions filed on behalf of the\t petitioner  society
\nare dismissed.\tNo costs.\n<\/p>\n
30.  In the appeals arising out of SLP(C)    Nos.   11482-90
\nof 1991, after the dismissal of the appeals a direction\t has
\nbeen  given  that as a result of the quashing  of  the\tland
\nacquisition  proceedings  including  the  notifications\t  in
\nquestion,  the possession of the land shall be\trestored  to
\nthe respective land owners irrespective of the fact  whether
\nthey  had challenged the acquisition of their lands or\tnot.
\nA  further direction has been given that on  restoration  of
\nthe  possession\t to the land owners, they shall\t refund\t the
\namounts received by them as compensation or otherwise in re-
\nspect of their lands.  We issue a similar direction even  in
\nthis  case.  The petitioner, the respondents and  the  State
\nGovernment  including  all  concerned  authorities\/  persons
\nshall implement the aforesaid directions at an early date.
\nAmarjyothi House Building Co-operative Society Lid.,
\nV.\n<\/p>\n
State of Karnataka & Ors. etc
\nSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 13114 AND 13339 OF 1991\n<\/p>\n
31. These special leave petitions have been filed on  behalf
\nof  the petitioner Amar jyothi House  Building\tCo-operative
\nSociety\t Ltd.for  setting  aside the judgment  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\tquashing the notifications under Sections  4(1)\t and
\n6(1)  of the Land Acquisition Act, acquiring lands  for\t the
\npetitioner society.  From the judgment of the High Court, it
\nappears that this society also had entered into an agreement
\nwith  a\t developer  who\t had assured to\t get  the  lands  in
\nquestion  acquired in accordance with the provisions of\t the
\nAct.   Petitioner  society  paid huge  amount  to  the\tsaid
\ndeveloper  for the said object.\t In this case also there  is
\nno  order of the State Government, granting  prior  approval
\nfor  acquisition  of the lands in question, as\trequired  by
\nSection\t 3(f)(vi)of  the  Act.\t The  High  Court  has\talso
\nreferred  to the Report of Mr. G.V.K. Rao, about  the  bogus
\nmembers.  According to the finding, the Society had admitted
\n4,050 bogus members.  As such, there is no scope for  taking
\na  view contrary one which we have taken while disposing  of
\nthe  appeals (arising out of S.L.P(C)Nos. 11482-90 of  1991)
\nfiled on behalf of the H.M.T. House Building
\n558<\/span>
\nCo-operative  Society.\t These special leave  petitions\t are
\naccordingly dismissed.\tNo costs.\n<\/p>\n
32.  In the appeals arising out of SLP (C)   Nos.   11482-90
\nof 199 1, after the dismissal of the appeals a direction has
\nbeen  given  that as a result of the quashing  of  the\tland
\nacquisition  proceedings  including  the  notifications\t  in
\nquestion,  the possession of the land shall be\trestored  to
\nthe respective land owners irrespective of the fact  whether
\nthey  had challenged the acquisition of their lands or\tnot.
\nA  further direction has been given that on  restoration  of
\nthe  possession\t to the land owners, they shall\t refund\t the
\namounts received by them as compensation or otherwise in re-
\nspect of their lands.  We issue a similar direction even  in
\nthis  case.  The petitioner, the respondents and  the  State
\nGovernment including all concerned authorities\/persons shall
\nimplement the aforesaid directions at an early date.
\nThe Bangalore City Chickpet House
\nBuilding Co-operative Society Ltd.,
\nv.\n<\/p>\n
Venkamma @ Venkatamma & ors.\n<\/p>\n
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NOS 1203237 OF 1991\n<\/p>\n
33.  These  special  leave  petitions have  been  filed\t for
\nsetting\t aside the judgment of the High Court, quashing\t the
\nnotifications  under  Sections\t4(1) and 6(1)  of  the\tLand
\nAcquisition  Act, on the ground that the said  notifications
\nhad been issued at the instance of the agents, appointed  by
\nthe petitioner society.\t The High Court has also referred to
\nthe  agreement entered into by the petitioner and  the\tsaid
\nmiddle-man, who had undertaken to get the lands in  question
\nacquired.   The\t agent had undertaken in  the  agreement  to
\nmanage\tall  concerned “at all levels”.\t No  order  granting
\nprior approval by the, State Government for the\t acquisition
\nof the lands, as required by Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act has
\nbeen  produced.\t According to us, the facts of\tthe  present
\ncase  are  no  way different from that\tof  the\t H.M.T.House
\nBuilding Co-operative Society, which has been disposed of by
\na reasoned judgment.  That judgment fully covers the present
\nspecial\t leave\tpetitions also.\t  Accordingly,\tthe  special
\nleave petitions are dismissed.\tNo costs.\n<\/p>\n
34.  In the appeals arising out of SLP (C)   Nos.   11482-90
\nof 1991, after the dismissal of the appeals a direction\t has
\nbeen  given  that as a result of the quashing  of  the\tland
\nacquisition  proceedings  including  the  notifications\t  in
\nquestion,  the possession of the land shall be\trestored  to
\nthe respective land owners irrespective of the fact  whether
\nthey  had challenged the acquisition of their lands or\tnot.
\nA  further direction has been given that on  restoration  of
\nthe  possession\t to the land owners, they shall\t refund\t the
\namounts received by them as compensation or otherwise in re-
\nspect of their lands.  We issue a similar direction even  in
\nthis  case.  The petitioner, the respondents and  the  State
\nGovernment including all concerned authorities\/persons shall
\nimplement the aforesaid directions at an early date.
\nREMCO (BHEL) House Building Co-op.  Society Ltd.
\nv.\n<\/p>\n
Sri Neelakantaiah & Ors.\n<\/p>\n
559<\/span><\/p>\n
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 12535-37 OF 1991\n<\/p>\n
35.  These  special leave petitions have been filed  against
\nthe  judgment of the High Court, quashing the  notifications
\nunder Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,  on
\nthe  ground  that the notifications had been issued  at\t the
\ninstance of the agent, appointed by the petitioner  society.
\nThe learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, could not
\npoint  out as to how the facts of the present case are\tdif-
\nferent from the facts of the H.M.T. House Building  Society,
\nso  far this aspect is concerned.  He has, however,  pointed
\nout  that in the present case, an order had been  issued  by
\nthe  State  Government\tgranting prior\tapproval.   In\tthis
\nconnection, reference was made to an order dated 9.8.1984 by
\nwhich  it  is  said that the Government\t had  granted  prior
\napproval  for  the  acquisition of the\tlands  in  question.
\nAccording to us, an order dated 9.8.1984 cannot be an  order
\nunder  Section\t3(f)(vi) because the definition\t of  ‘public
\npurpose’  which\t was introduced by Act 68 of  1984  came  in
\nforce  with  effect  from 24.9.1984. As such  there  was  no
\noccasion  for the State Government to exercise\tpower  under
\nSection\t 3(f)(vi)  on 9.8.1984. Any such order\tmust  be  in
\nterms of Section 39 read with Section 40 of Part VII of\t the
\nAct,  which part is applicable when acquisition of  land  is
\nmade for companies.  It is surprising as to how the  present
\nHouse  Building Co-op.\tSociety was being treated even as  a
\ncompany\t on 9.8.1984, because the new definition of  company
\nwas  also  introduced  in  Section  3(e)  with\teffect\tfrom
\n24.9.1984.  Accordingly, there is no merit in these  special
\nleave petitions, which are dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
36.  In\t the appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 11482-90  of
\n1991,  after  the dismissal of the appeals a  direction\t has
\nbeen  given  that as a result of the quashing  of  the\tland
\nacquisition  proceedings  including  the  notifications\t  in
\nquestion,  the possession of the land shall be\trestored  to
\nthe respective land owners irrespective of the fact  whether
\nthey  had challenged the acquisition of their lands or\tnot.
\nA  further direction has been given that on  restoration  of
\nthe  possession\t to the land owners, they shall\t refund\t the
\namounts received by them as compensation or otherwise in re-
\nspect of their lands.  We issue a similar direction even  in
\nthis  case.  The petitioner, the respondents and  the  State
\nGovernment including all concerned authorities\/persons shall
\nimplement the aforesaid directions at an early date.
\nState of Karnataka and Ors.\n<\/p>\n
V.\n<\/p>\n
Narayana Reddy and Ors.\n<\/p>\n
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 58245920 OF 1992\n<\/p>\n
37.  The special leave petition has been filed on behalf  of
\nthe State of Karnataka against the same judgment of the High
\nCourt,\tquashing the notifications under Sections  4(1)\t and
\n6(1)  of  the  Land Acquisition\t Act,  acquiring  lands\t for
\ndifferent House Building Co-operative Societies.  The  State
\nof Karnataka has purported to justify the issuance of  those
\nnotifications.\t Whether  the  lands in\t question  had\tbeen
\nacquired in accordance with law has been examined in  detail
\nin  the case of H.M.T. House Building Co-operative  Society.
\nIn  view  of  the reasons given in the\tsaid  judgment,\t the
\nspecial leave petition has to be
\n560<\/span>
\ndismissed,  The\t application  for condonation  of  delay  in
\nfiling\tthe  special leave petition is also  dismissed.\t  No
\ncost.\n<\/p>\n
38.  In the appeals arising out of SLP (C)   Nos.   11482-90
\nof 1991, after the dismissal of the appeals a direction\t has
\nbeen  given  that as a result of the quashing  of  the\tland
\nacquisition  proceedings  including  the  notifications\t  in
\nquestion,  the possession of the land shall be\trestored  to
\nthe respective land owners irrespective of the fact  whether
\nthey  had challenged the acquisition of their lands or\tnot.
\nA  further direction has been given that on  restoration  of
\nthe  possession\t to the land owners, they shall\t refund\t the
\namounts received by them as compensation or otherwise in re-
\nspect of their lands.  We issue a similar direction even  in
\nthis  case.  The petitioners and the  respondents  including
\nall   concerned\t authorities\/persons  shall  implement\t the
\naforesaid directions at an early date.\n<\/p>\n
Bank  Officers\t&  officials  House  Building\tCo-operative
\nSociety Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
v.\n<\/p>\n
Sanjeevappa and Om
\nCivil\tAppeal\t Nos.  3020-24\tof   1995(Arising   out\t  of
\nS.L.P(C)Nos. 12530-34 of 1991)
\n\t\t\t    AND
\nThe  Bank  Officers and officials House House  Building\t Co-
\noperative Society Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
v.\n<\/p>\n
N.Jayarama& On.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal Nos. 3025 of 1995
\n(Arising out of S.L.P(C)Nos. 13189 of 1991)\n<\/p>\n
39. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
40.  On behalf of the appellant society, it was pointed\t out
\nthat  in these cases, the appellant society had not  entered
\ninto any agreement with any agent or contractor as had\tbeen
\ndone in other cases referred to above.\tIt was also  pointed
\nout  that some of the land holders in the present  case\t had
\nfiled  writ  applications, which had been dismissed  by\t the
\nHigh  Court.  Special Leave Petitions against the  order  of
\nthe  High Court have also been dismissed by this Court.\t  It
\nwas urged that in this background the High Court should\t not
\nhave quashed the notifications under Sections 4(1) and\t6(1)
\nof the Land Acquisition Act, so far the acquisition for\t the
\nappellant  society is concerned.  The stand taken on  behalf
\nof  the appellants, in these appeals was not  challenged  on
\nbehalf\tof  the\t respondents.  The special  feature  of\t the
\npresent\t case as already pointed out above is that  the\t ap-
\npellant society had not entered into any agreement with\t any
\nagent  or contractor to get the lands acquired.\t It was\t not
\nstated\tthat there was no prior approval of the\t appropriate
\nGovernment to the scheme in question.  According to us,\t the
\nfacts  of  the present case are different from\tthe  others,
\nwhich have been disposed of by this Court.  Accordingly, the
\nappeals\t arc allowed and the judgment of the High  Court  so
\nfar  it relates to the appellant society, is set aside.\t  No
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
562<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India H.M.T. House Building Co-Op. … vs Syed Khader & Ors on 21 February, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 2244, 1995 SCC (2) 677 Author: S N.P. Bench: Singh N.P. (J) PETITIONER: H.M.T. HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY Vs. RESPONDENT: SYED KHADER & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT21\/02\/1995 BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) BENCH: SINGH […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-566","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nH.M.T. House Building Co-Op. ... vs Syed Khader & Ors on 21 February, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"H.M.T. House Building Co-Op. ... vs Syed Khader & Ors on 21 February, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1995-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-09T05:55:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"40 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"H.M.T. House Building Co-Op. … vs Syed Khader & Ors on 21 February, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-09T05:55:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995\"},\"wordCount\":7996,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995\",\"name\":\"H.M.T. House Building Co-Op. ... vs Syed Khader & Ors on 21 February, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-09T05:55:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"H.M.T. House Building Co-Op. … vs Syed Khader & Ors on 21 February, 1995\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"H.M.T. House Building Co-Op. ... vs Syed Khader & Ors on 21 February, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"H.M.T. House Building Co-Op. ... vs Syed Khader & Ors on 21 February, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-09T05:55:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"40 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"H.M.T. House Building Co-Op. … vs Syed Khader & Ors on 21 February, 1995","datePublished":"1995-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-09T05:55:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995"},"wordCount":7996,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995","name":"H.M.T. House Building Co-Op. ... vs Syed Khader & Ors on 21 February, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-09T05:55:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-m-t-house-building-co-op-vs-syed-khader-ors-on-21-february-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"H.M.T. House Building Co-Op. … vs Syed Khader & Ors on 21 February, 1995"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/566","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=566"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/566\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=566"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=566"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=566"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}