H M T HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY VYALIKAVAL HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AMARJYOTHI HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED BANGALORE CITY CHICKPET HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. M VENKATASWAMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The connected Appeals Nos. 3011-19 of 1995 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 11482-90 of 1991) H.M.T. House Building Co-op. Society v. Syed Khader and others* have already been disposed of by a reasoned judgment. The reasons given for dismissing the said appeals are equally applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, these special leave petitions filed on behalf of the same House Building Co-operative Society are dismissed. No Costs.

(2.) In the Appeals Nos. 3011-19 of 1995 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11482-90 of 1991, after the dismissal of the appeals a direction has been given that as a result of the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings including the notifications in question, the possession of the land shall be restored to the respective land owners irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of their lands or not. A further direction has been given that on restoration of the possession to the land owners, they shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or otherwise in respect of their lands. We issue a similar direction even in this case. The petitioner, the respondents and the State Government including all concerned authorities/persons shall implement the aforesaid directions at an early date. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 12104-07, 12600-03, 13150-80, 18297-300 OF 1991. Petitioner:Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Respondent:Narayana Reddy and Ors. etc. etc.

(3.) Lands on basis of the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, had been acquired for the petitioner-House Building Society, treating the said acquisition to be for a public purpose. No order of the State Government as required by Section 3(f)(vii) granting prior approval for acquisition of the lands in question for the housing scheme of the petitioner society has been produced. The petitioner society had also entered into an agreement with the contractor more or less on the same terms and conditions as was in the case of H.M.T. Housing Building Co-operative Society, assuring that the lands in question shall be acquired on basis of the notification issued by the State Government under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act. The High Court in its impugned judgment has given details of the allegations made against the petitioner society regarding collection of huge amounts from different applicants for site who were not even members of the society and how the society had entered into an agreement with agents, who with their influence have got the lands acquired. The High Court has also referred to an advertisement issued by the petitioner society inviting persons who want to have mansions in the city of Bangalore. It also gave the name and address of a representative at Dubai. On basis of the aforesaid materials, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the Society itself was not a bona fide House Building Society. The High Court has also recorded a finding that the notification under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act had been issued at the instance of the agents appointed by the petitioner society, to whom huge amounts had been paid for influencing the Government to issue the aforesaid notification. Mr. Ramaswamy, appearing for the petitioner society purported to distinguish this case on fact from the case of H.M.T. House Building Co-operative Society. But according to us, the facts of the present case are similar to the case of H.M.T. House Building Co-operative Society and there is no scope to interfere with the order of the High Court, quashing the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1). Accordingly, the special leave petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner society are dismissed. No costs.