{"id":71543,"date":"2007-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007"},"modified":"2018-07-25T04:58:53","modified_gmt":"2018-07-24T23:28:53","slug":"the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"The Vyalikaval House Building … vs V.Chandrappa & Ors on 2 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Vyalikaval House Building … vs V.Chandrappa & Ors on 2 February, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: A Mathur<\/div>\n
Bench: G.P. Mathur, A.K. Mathur<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2086-2087 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nThe Vyalikaval House Building Co-Op.Society by its Secretary\n\nRESPONDENT:\nV.Chandrappa & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/02\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nG.P. Mathur & A.K. Mathur\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
A.K. MATHUR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThese appeals are directed against the order passed
\nby the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court at
\nBangalore in Writ Appeal No.2294 of 1999 dated 17.1.2000
\nwhereby  the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside
\nthe order dated 11.11.1998 in Writ Petition No.30622 of 1998
\npassed by learned Single Judge for the reasons mentioned in
\nWrit Appeal No.2188 of 1998 disposed of by the Division
\nBench of the High Court on 17.1.2000  and the order dated
\n22.3.2002 passed by the Division Bench in the Review Petition
\nNo.156 of 2000 in W.A.No.2294 of 1999.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThis case has a chequered history, therefore, in
\norder to deal with it, it will be necessary to refer to certain
\nfacts.  A notification was issued on 22.12.1984 under Section
\n4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred
\nto as ‘the Act’)  for acquiring 176 acres and 5 guntas of land in
\nNagavara village of Bangalore North  Taluk. Declaration under
\nSection 6 of the Act was issued on 21.2.1986 and the award
\nwas passed on the basis of the aforesaid notification on
\n16.11.1987.  It was alleged that  the possession of the land
\nwas taken on different dates up to the year 1992.  It was
\nalleged that possession of 31 acres and 21 guntas of land
\nincluding an area  measuring 1 acre and 25 guntas situated in
\nSurvey No.78\/4  of Nagavara  village  was taken on 6.8.1988.
\nAggrieved against the aforesaid notification and the award
\nprivate petitioners filed writ petition assailing the validity
\nthereof on variety of grounds. It was alleged that this land
\nmeasuring 8 acres and 2 guntas  was owned jointly by a family
\ncomprising 5 brothers, namely; Pattadi Haumanthappa,
\nPattadi Venkateshappa, Pattadi Nannappa, Pattadi
\nLakshmaiah and Pattadi Nagappa, all deceased and survived
\nby their legal heirs, who filed the writ petition. The main
\ngrievance of these petitioners was that this notification was
\nvery adversely commented by the Karnataka High Court in the
\ncase of Narayana Reddy. V. State of Karnataka<\/a> [ ILR 1991 Kar.
\n2248]  and the decision of the  Division Bench of the
\nKarnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2336-2343 of 1997
\nand connected matters which were disposed of on 5.3.1998. In
\nthat judgment it was held that the whole acquisition
\nproceedings  stand vitiated on account of fraud, the appellant
\nSociety was also found to be not bonafide housing society,
\ntherefore, on the basis  of the same reasoning the present
\nnotification was also challenged and it was urged that the
\nimpugned notification also suffered from same vice of mala
\nfide,  therefore, it should be quashed.  It was alleged that the
\ndelay in approaching the Court was irrelevant since the
\nvalidity of the same notification in which other lands were
\nacquired along with the  present land has been found to be
\nvoid.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThis writ petition was contested by the appellant-
\nsociety as respondent  and it was alleged that it was
\nhopelessly barred by time being delayed by 14 years and it
\nwas also submitted that  the writ petitioners had participated
\nin the inquiry under section 5A of the Act and have also
\nreceived substantial amount from the appellant-society
\npursuant to the agreement executed in their favour.  Learned
\nSingle Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of
\nbeing hopelessly barred by time and the writ petitioners
\nparticipated in the proceedings therefore they have acquiesced
\nin the matter. Aggrieved against this order passed by learned
\nSingle Judge, a writ appeal was filed by the respondents which
\ncame to be allowed by the Division Bench for the reasons
\nmentioned in another writ appeal decided by the same
\nDivision Bench headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court
\non 17.1.2000.   In that writ appeal the Division Bench held
\nthat the entire acquisition on behalf of the appellant-society
\nwas actuated with fraud  as held in Narayana Reddy v. State
\nof Karnataka<\/a> [ILR 1991 Kar.2248].  In that case it was held as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t”  As seen from the findings of
\nG.V.K.Rao Inquiry Report, in respect of five
\nrespondent societies and the report of the Joint
\nRegistrar in respect of Vualikaval House
\nBuilding Co-operative Society, these Societies
\nhad indulged in enrolling large number of
\nmembers illegally inclusive of ineligible
\nmembers and had also indulged in enrolling
\nlarge number of bogus members. The only
\ninference that is possible from this is that the
\noffice bearers of the societies had entered into
\nunholy alliance with the respective agents for
\nthe purpose of making money, as submitted for
\nthe petitioners otherwise,  there is no reason as
\nto why such an Agreement should have been
\nbrought about by the office bearers of the
\nSociety and the agents. Unless  these persons
\nhad the intention of making huge profits as
\nalleged by the petitioners, they would not have
\nindulged  in enrolment of ineligible and bogus
\nmembers. The circumstance that without
\nconsidering all these relevant materials the
\nGovernment had accorded its approval,  is
\nsufficient to hold that the agents had prevailed
\nupon the Government to take a decision to
\nacquire the lands without going into all those
\nrelevant facts. The irresistible inference flowing
\nfrom the facts and circumstances of these cases
\nis, whereas  the poser conferred under the Land
\nAcquisition Act is for acquiring lands for
\ncarrying out housing scheme by a housing
\nsociety, in each of the cases the acquisition of
\nlands is not for a bona fide housing  scheme
\nbut is substantially for the purpose of enabling
\nthe concerned office bearers of respondent-
\nsocieties and their agents to indulge in sale of
\nsites in the guise of allotment of sites to the
\nMembers\/ Associate members of the society to
\nmake money as alleged by the petitioners and
\ntherefore it is a clear case of colourable exercise
\nof power.  Thus the decision of the Government
\nto acquire the lands suffers from legal mala
\nfides and therefore the impugned Notifications
\nare liable to be struck down.”\n<\/p>\n
In view of aforesaid observation, their Lordships of
\nDivision Bench held that since  the acquisition was colourale
\nexercise  of the power, therefore, delay cannot be a good
\nground to dismiss the writ petition.   The said judgment of the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court of Karnataka was affirmed
\nby this Court  in Special Leave Petition Nos.(c)..CC 525-532 of
\n1999 and Special Leave Petition Nos.(c) ..CC 504-522  of 1999
\ndecided on  14.7.1999 and it was held that the appellant-
\nsociety is a bogus house building  society and accordingly, the
\norder passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside by
\nDivision Bench.  Against the order of the Division Bench
\npassed in Writ Appeal No.2294 of 1999 a review petition was
\nfiled which was dismissed on 22.3.2002.  Hence both these
\nappeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tLearned counsel for the appellant urged before us
\nthat the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court is
\nnot correct as the Division Bench should not have condoned
\nthe inordinate delay  of 14 years  and secondly, learned
\ncounsel further submitted that the respondents herein being
\nthe beneficiary had entered into an agreement of sale and had
\naccepted the whole amount not to file objections under Section
\n5A of the Act for acquiring the aforesaid land.  Learned
\ncounsel for the appellant has emphasized that the Division
\nBench has gone wrong  in setting aside the order of the
\nlearned Single Judge as the learned Single Judge has
\ndiscussed the factual controversy in greater detail.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tAs against this, learned counsel for the respondents
\nsubmitted that there was not one  judgment but there are
\nnumber of judgments in which such acquisition of land has
\nbeen set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents invited
\nour attention to two decisions of this Court  in the case of
\nH.M.T. House Building Co-operative Society v. Syed Khader &
\nOrs.<\/a> [ (1995) 2 SCC 677] and  H.M.T. House Building Co-
\noperative Society v. M.Venkatswamappa & Ors. etc. etc.
\n[(1995) 3 SCC 128] in which similar societies filed  Special
\nLeave Petitions  and this Court affirmed the order of the
\nKarnataka High Court  and held that the whole exercise of
\nacquiring the land by various societies  including the present
\nappellant-society was actuated with mala fide and quashed  all
\nacquisitions.  In this connection, a reference may be made to
\nH.M.T.House Building Co-operative Soceity’s case (supra)
\nwherein the similar question was raised by the Co-operative
\nSociety like the appellant herein and in that context their
\nLordships  framed the question in paragraph 18 of the
\njudgment which heads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t” 18.\tNow the question which is to be
\nanswered is as to whether in view of the
\ndefinition of “public purpose”  introduced by the
\naforesaid Amending Act 68 of 1984 in Section
\n3(f)(vi), is it open to the appropriate Government
\nto acquire land for cooperative society for
\nhousing scheme without making proper enquiry
\nabout the members of the society and without
\nputting such housing cooperative society to
\nterm in respect of nature of construction, the
\narea to be allotted to the members and
\nrestrictions on transfer thereof ?”\n<\/p>\n
This question was answered by their Lordships in paragraphs
\n21 & 22 which reads  thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t” That is why the framers of the Act
\nhave required the appropriate Government to
\ngrant prior approval of any housing scheme
\npresented by  any cooperative society before the
\nlands are acquired treating  such requirement
\nand acquisition for public purpose.  It is
\nincumbent on the part of the appropriate
\nGovernment  while granting approval to
\nexamine different aspects of the matter so that
\nit may serve the public interest and not the
\ninterest of few who can as well afford to acquire
\nsuch lands by negotiation in open market.
\nAccording to us, the State Government has not
\ngranted the prior approval in terms of Section
\n3(f)(vi) of the Act to the housing scheme in
\nquestion. The power under Section 4(1) and 6(1)
\nof the Act has been exercised for extraneous
\nconsideration and at the instance of the
\npersons who had no role in the decision-making
\nprocess  whether the acquisition of the lands
\nin question shall be for a public purpose. This
\nitself is enough to vitiate the whole acquisition
\nproceeding and render the same invalid.”\n<\/p>\n
22.\tIn the present case there has been
\ncontravention of Section 3(f) (vi) of the Act
\ninasmuch as there was no prior approval of the
\nState Government as required by the said
\nsection before steps for acquisition of the lands
\nwere taken. The report of Shri G.K.V.Rao points
\nout as to how the appellant-Society admitted
\nlarge number of persons as members who
\ncannot be held to be genuine members, the sole
\nobject being to transfer the lands acquired for
\n“public purpose”, to outsiders as part of
\ncommercial venture, undertaken by the office-
\nbearer of the appellant-Society. We are in
\nagreement wit the finding of the High Court that
\nthe statutory notifications issued under
\nSections 4(1) and  6(1) of the Act have been
\nissued due to the role played by M\/s.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.Constructions, Respondent No.11. On the
\nmaterials on record, the High Court was
\njustified in coming to the conclusion that the
\nproceedings for acquisition of the lands had not
\nbeen initiated  because the State Government
\nwas satisfied about the existence of the public
\npurpose but at the instance of agent who had
\ncollected more than a crore of rupees for getting
\nthe lands acquired by the State Government.”\n<\/p>\n
Similarly, in H.M.T.House Building Cooperative Society
\n((1995) 3 SCC 128] in which the present appellant was one of
\nthe societies, which challenged the order of the  Division
\nBench of the High Court of Karnataka, their Lordships
\ndismissed the Special Leave Petition following the judgment in
\nH.M.T. House Building Cooperative Society (supra).  In
\nparagraph 3 of the judgment while dealing with the facts of
\nthis society their Lordships observed that this society had
\nadvertised inviting persons who want to have mansions in the
\ncity of Bangalore and had also given the names and addresses
\nof  the representative at Dubai. It was held that on the basis of
\nthe aforesaid material the High Court has rightly come to the
\nconclusion that  the society itself was not bona fide  house
\nbuilding society and accordingly, the order passed by the High
\nCourt setting aside the acquisition of the land was upheld by
\nthis Court and the SLP was dismissed. Paragraph 3 reads as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
\t”  3.\tLands on basis of the notifications
\nissued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land
\nAcquisition Act, had been acquired for the
\npetitioner-House Building Society, treating the
\nsaid acquisition to be for a public purpose. No
\norder of the State Government as required by
\nSection 3(f)(vi) granting prior approval for
\nacquisition of the lands in question for the
\nhousing scheme of the petitioner-society has
\nbeen produced. The petitioner-Society had also
\nentered into an agreement with the contractor
\nmore or less on the same terms and conditions
\nas was in the case of HMT House Building
\nCooperative Society, assuring that the lands in
\nquestion shall be acquired on basis of the
\nnotification issued by the State Government
\nunder Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act. The
\nHigh Court in its impugned judgment has given
\ndetails of the allegations made against the
\npetitioner-Society regarding collection of huge
\namounts from different applicants for site who
\nwere not even members of the Society and how
\nthe Society had entered  into an agreement with
\nagents, who with their influence have got the
\nlands acquired. The High Court has also
\nreferred to an advertisement issued by the
\npetitioner-Society inviting persons who want to
\nhave mansions in the city of Bangalore. It also
\ngave the name and address of a representative
\nat Dubai. On basis of the aforesaid materials,
\nthe High Court has come to the conclusion that
\nthe society itself was not a bona fide House
\nBuilding Society. The High Court has also
\nrecorded a finding that the notifications under
\nSections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act had been
\nissued at the instance of the agents  appointed
\nby the petitioner-Society, to whom huge
\namounts had been paid for influencing the
\nGovernment to issue the aforesaid notifications.
\nMr. Ramaswamy, appearing for the petitioner-
\nSociety purported to distinguish this case on
\nfacts from the case of HMT House Building
\nCooperative Society. But according to us, the
\nfacts of the present case are similar to the case
\nof HMT House Building Cooperative Society and
\nthere is no scope to interfere with  the order of
\nthe High Court, quashing the notifications
\nunder Sections 4(1) and 6(1). Accordingly, the
\nspecial leave petitions filed  on behalf of the
\npetitioner-Society are dismissed. No costs.”\n<\/p>\n
 Learned counsel for the respondents has also invited our
\nattention that same notification was set aside by the High
\nCourt and the said order of the High Court was also upheld by
\nthis Court  by dismissing the S.L.P.(c) No.6196 of 1998 on
\n7.4.1998 and S.L.P.(c) ..CC 495-a498 of 1999 on 14.7.1999
\nconcerning the very same appellant society.   In this
\nbackground, when the acquisition has been found to be totally
\nmala fide and not for bona fide purpose, the ground of delay
\nand acquiescence in the present case has no substance.
\nLearned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade us that as
\nthe amount in question has been accepted by the respondents,
\nit is not open for them now to wriggle out from that agreement.
\nIt may be that the appellant  might have tried to settle out the
\nacquisition  but when the whole acquisition emanates from the
\naforesaid tainted notification any settlement on the basis of
\nthat notification cannot be validated. The fact remains that
\nwhen the basic notification under which the present land is
\nsought to be acquired stood vitiated then whatever money
\nthat the appellant has paid, is at its own risk.  Once the
\nnotification goes no benefit  could be derived by the appellant.
\nWe are satisfied that issue of notification  was mala fide and it
\nwas not for public purpose, as has been observed by this
\nCourt, nothing turns on the question of delay and
\nacquiescence.  Learned Counsel for respondents raised  other
\npleas  like  decree for partition was granted among brothers &
\nthey  were not made parties, we are not going into those
\nquestions when we are  satisfied  that when  acquisition stand
\nvitiated on account of  mala fide,  nothing remains further.\n<\/p>\n
In the light of the discussions made above, the view
\ntaken by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in
\nthe impugned judgment is correct and we uphold the same
\nand dismiss both the appeals. No order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Vyalikaval House Building … vs V.Chandrappa & Ors on 2 February, 2007 Author: A Mathur Bench: G.P. Mathur, A.K. Mathur CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2086-2087 of 2004 PETITIONER: The Vyalikaval House Building Co-Op.Society by its Secretary RESPONDENT: V.Chandrappa & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/02\/2007 BENCH: G.P. Mathur & A.K. Mathur […]<\/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-71543","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Vyalikaval House Building ... vs V.Chandrappa & Ors on 2 February, 2007 - 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\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Vyalikaval House Building ... vs V.Chandrappa & Ors on 2 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-24T23:28:53+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Vyalikaval House Building … vs V.Chandrappa & Ors on 2 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-24T23:28:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2730,\"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\\\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007\",\"name\":\"The Vyalikaval House Building ... vs V.Chandrappa & Ors on 2 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-24T23:28:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Vyalikaval House Building … vs V.Chandrappa & Ors on 2 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"The Vyalikaval House Building ... vs V.Chandrappa & Ors on 2 February, 2007 - 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\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Vyalikaval House Building ... vs V.Chandrappa & Ors on 2 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-24T23:28:53+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Vyalikaval House Building … vs V.Chandrappa & Ors on 2 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-24T23:28:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007"},"wordCount":2730,"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\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007","name":"The Vyalikaval House Building ... vs V.Chandrappa & Ors on 2 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-24T23:28:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vyalikaval-house-building-vs-v-chandrappa-ors-on-2-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Vyalikaval House Building … vs V.Chandrappa & Ors on 2 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/71543","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=71543"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71543\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}