Supreme Court of India
M/S. ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusG. JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 726
- Decided
- 29 September 2011
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- G S SINGHVI
Holding
The Supreme Court held that where the acquisition is tainted by fraud and diversion to private purposes, the High Court's discretion to entertain a belated writ petition is not vitiated and the acquisition must be set aside with the land restored to the owner.
Summary
The Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation acquired 37 acres of land for a golf‑cum‑hotel resort under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but later transferred portions of the land to private entities. Several landowners challenged the acquisition, alleging fraud and diversion of public purpose. The High Court, after initially dismissing some petitions for delay, ultimately quashed the acquisition and ordered restoration of the land, despite the petitioners' belated filing. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in entertaining a delayed writ petition, the applicability of limitation rules under Article 226, and the legality of transferring acquired land to private parties. It held that the fraud and diversion justified condoning the delay and upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the acquisition and restore the land. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether land acquired for a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act can be transferred to private individuals or entities.
- Whether the High Court erred in entertaining a writ petition filed after a long delay and in ignoring the doctrine of laches.
- Whether the discretion exercised by the High Court in ignoring the delay is vitiated by any patent error or irrelevant consideration.
- Whether the High Court was justified in directing restoration of the acquired land to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 226
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 20, s. 4, s. 6
- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976s. 20
Subjects
Land acquisitionEminent domainFraud on powerPublic purposeTransfer to privateDelayLachesArticle 226Restoration of land
Judgment
(2011) 11 S.C.R. 701
M/S. ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANOTHER A
v.
G. JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7588 of 2005
SEPTEMBER 29, 2011. ·
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
c
Article 226 read with Article 136 - Limitation for filing of
writ petition - Held: Though no period of limitation has been
provided for filing a petition under Article 226, but one of the
several rules of self-imposed restraint is that the High Court
may not enquire into a belated or stale claim and may deny D
relief to the petitioner if he is found guilty of /aches - Further,
during the intervening period, rights of third parties may have
crystallized - Interference by Supreme Court in such matters
would be warranted only if it is found that the exercise of
discretion by High Court was totally arbitrary or was based on E
irrelevant consideration - In the instant case, the High Court
in earlier writ petitions had nullified the acquisition on the
ground of fraud and misuse of the provisions of the Act as
instead of using the acquired land for the public purpose
specified in the notifications u/ss 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition
Act, it was transferred to private persons - When the writ F
petitioner-respondent came to know that his land has a/so
been transferred to a private entity, he made a grievance and
finally approached the High Court - During the intervening
period, he pursued his claim for higher compensation -
Therefore, it cannot be said that he was sleeping over his right G
and was guilty of /aches - Therefore, the discretion exercised
by the High Court to entertain and decide the writ petition filed
by the respondent on merits and allowing his claim cannot
701 H
9'02 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 11 S.C.R.
A be said to be vitiated by any patent legal infirmity - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 6.
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894:
ss. 4 and 6 - Land acquired for public purpose -
B Diversified to private persons and entities - Land owners
approaching High Court challenging the acquisition
proceedings and for restoring the land to them - Held: The
power of eminent domain to compulsorily acquire the land of
private persons cannot be over-stretched to legitimize a
C patently illegal and fraudulent exercise undertaken for
depriving the land owners of their constitutional right to
property with a view to favour private persons - Therefore, the
Corporation did not have the jurisdiction to transfer the land
acquired for a public purpose to the companies and thereby
D allow them to bypass the provisions of Part VII of the Act -
The diversification of the purpose for which the land was
acquired u/s 4(1) read withs. 6, clearly amounted to fraud on
the power of eminent domain - High Court, therefore,
quashed the notifications u/ss 4(1) and 6 in their entirety and
E that judgment has become final - In the instant case, the land
owner has succeeded in convincing the Division Bench of the
High Court that the action taken by the Corporation to transfer
his land to the private entity was wholly illegal, arbitrary and
unjustified and there is no valid ground to interfere with the
F impugned judgment - Administrative Law - Power of eminent
domain.
The State Government, at the instance of the
Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation
(Corporation), issued notification dated 29.12.1981 uls
G 4(1) and declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 acquiring the land admeasuring 37 acres 4 guntas
of land comprised in various survey numbers including
Survey No.122, for public purpose, namely, construction
of Golf-cum-Hotel Resort near Bangalore Airport,
H Bangalore to be raised by the Corporation. The Special
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 703
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS.
Land Acquisition Officer passed the award dated A
7.4.1986. However1 in the meeting of senior officers of the
Bangalore Development Authority and the Corporation
held on 13.1.1987, the Managing Director of the
Corporation gave out that the Corporation did not have
necessary finances for deposit of cost of the acquisition B
and in furtherance of the decision taken in that meeting,
agreements were executed by the Corporation conveying
the land to private entities. This was challenged by the
land owners, namely, Mrs. Behroze Ramyar Batha,
Annaiah and Smt. H.N. Lakshmamma, before the High c
Court in writ petitions which were dismissed by the Single
Judge of the High Court on the ground of delay.
However, on appeal, the Division Bench of the High
Court, allowed the claim of the land-owners and directed
their lands to be returned to them subject to certain D
conditions.
As regards the land admeasuring 2 acres 30 guntas
comprised in Survey No.122, respondent No.1 and his
brothers filed applications u/s 18 of the Act for making
reference to the court for enhancement of the E
compensation. During the pendency of reference, the
Corporation invited bids for allotment of 5 acres of land
including 2 acres 30 guntas belonging to respondent
No.1 and his brothers for putting up a tourist resort and
executed a registered lease deed dated 9.1.1992 in favour F
of Mis. 'URL' (predecessor of appellant no.1 in C.A. No.
7588 of 2005) purporting to lease out 5 acres of land for
a period of 30 years on an annual rent of Rs.1, 11,111/- per
acre for the first .10 years. The brothers of respondent
No.1 filed Writ Petition Nos.2379 and 2380 of 1993 G
seeking to quash the acquisition of land measuring 0.29
guntas and 0.38 guntas respectively, which came to their
share in the family partition effected in 1968. They relied
upon the judgmenp of the Division Bench in the cases
of ·Mrs. Behroze Ramyar Bath a and Smt. H. N. H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A Lakshmamma and pleaded that once the acquisition had
been quashed at the instance of other landowners, the
acquisition of their land was also liable to be annulled.
The Single Judge distinguished the cited cases and
dismissed the writ petitions holding that the petitioners
B did not question the acquisition for a period of almost two
years and approached the High Court after long lapse of
time c-ounted from the date of acquisition. The writ
appeals filed by the brothers of respondent no. 1 were
summarily dismissed by the Division Bench of the High
c Court and their special leave petitions were also
dismissed by Supreme Court.
Respondent no. 1 filed a separate writ petition
seeking to quash the notifications dated 29.12.1981 and
16.4.1983 insofar as the same related to the land
D admeasuring 1 acre 3 guntas comprised in Survey
No.122 and for issue of a mandamus to the appellants to
redeliver possession of the said land to him. The Single
Judge, ultimately, dismissed the writ petition holding that
respondent no.1 approached the court after a long lapse
E of time. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the
writ appeal of respondent no. 1 and quashed the
acquisition of land measuring 1 acre 3 guntas comprised
in Survey No.122.
F In the instant appeals the questions for
consideration before the Court were: (i) whether the land
acquired by the State Government at the instance of the
Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation
(Corporation) for the specified purpose i.e. Golf-cum-
G Hotel Resort near Bangalore Airport, Bangalore could be
transferred by the Corporation to a private individual and
corporate entities (ii) whether the Division Bench of the
High Court committed an error by granting relief to
respondent No.1 despite the fact that he filed writ petition
after long lapse of time and the explanation given by him
H
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 705
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS.
was found unsatisfactory by the Single Judge, who A
decided the writ petition after remand by the Division
Bench; (iii) whether the discretion exercised by the
Division Bench of the High Court to ignore the delay in
filing of writ petition is vitiated by any patent error or the
reasons assigned for rejecting the appellants' objection B
of delay are irrelevant and extraneous; and (iv) whether
the High Court was justified in directing restoration of land
to respondent No.1.
Dismissing .the appeals, the Court
c
HELD: 1.1. Although, framers of the Constitution
have not prescribed any period .of limitation for filing a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
the power conferred upon the High Court to issue to any
person or authority including any Government, 0
directions, orders or writs is not hedged with any
condition or constraint, the superior Courts have evolved
several rules of self-imposed restraint including the one
that the High Court may not enquire into belated or stale
claim and may deny relief to the petitioner if he is found E
guilty of laches. The principle underlying this rule is that
the one who is not vigilant and does not seek
intervention of the High Court within reasonable time
from the date of accrual of cause of action or alleged
violation of constitutional, legal or other right is not F
entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Another reason for the High Court's refusal to entertain
belated claim is that during the intervening period rights
of third parties may have crystallized and it will be
inequitable to disturb those rights at the instance of a G
person who has approached the court after long lapse
of time and there is no cogent explanation for the delay.
However, no hard and fast rule can be laid down and no
straigl1tjacket formula can be evolved for deciding the
question of delay/laches and each case has to be decided H
on its own facts. [para 17) [734-B-F]
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 $.C.R.
A Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited v. District
Board, Bhojpur 1992 (2) SCR 155 = (1992) 2 SCC 598;
Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra 1974
(2) SCR 216 =
(1974) 1 SCC 317; and Shan.kara·
Cooperative Housing Society Lim.ited v. M. Prabhakar and
B others (2011) 5 sec 607 - relied on.
Industrial Development & Investment Company Private
Limited v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1989 Bombay 156 -
referred to.
C Administrative Law by WH.R. Wade and De Smith and
Ker - referred to
1.2. Another principle of law is that in exercise of
power under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court
0 would be extremely slow to interfere with the discretion
exercised by the High Court to entertain a belated
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Interference in such matters would be warranted only if
it is found that the exercise of discretion by the High
E Court was totally arbitrary or was based on irrelevant
consideration. [para 21) [737-H; 738-A]
Smt. Narayani Debi Khaitan v. State of Bihar (C.A.
No.140 of 1964 decided on 22.9.1964) - 1964 SCJ (Blue
Print) September 283 - relied on.
F
1.3. In the instant case, in the writ petition filed by
respondent No.1, he had not only prayed for quashing
of the acquisition proceedings, but also prayed for
restoration of the acquired land on the ground that
G instead of using the same for the public purpose
specified in the notifications issued ulss 4(1) and 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Corporation had
transferred the same to private persons. Respondent
No.1 and other landowners may not be having any
H serious objection to the acquisition of their land for a
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 707
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS.
public purpose and, therefore, some of them not only A
accepted the compensation, butalso filed applications u/
s 18 of the Act for determination of market value by the
court. However, when it was discovered that the acquired
land has been transferred to private persons, they sought
intervention of the court and in the three cases, the B
Division Bench of the High Court nullified the acquisition
on the ground of fraud and misuse of the provisions of
the Act. [para 22) [739-B-D]
1.4. Insofar as the land of respondent No.1 is C
concerned, the same was advertised in 1987 along with
other parcels of land (total measuring 5 acres) and the
Corporation executed lease in favour of the predecessor
of appellant No.1 in 1992. However, no material has been
placed on record to show that the said exercise was
undertaken after issuing notice to the landowners. When D
respondent No.1 discovered that his land has bt;!en
transferred to private entity, he made grievance and finally
approached the High Court. During the intervening
period, he pursued his claim for higher compensation.
Therefore, it cannot be said that he was sleeping over his E
right and was guilty of laches. [para 23) [739-F-G]
1.5. A reading of the impugned judgment shows that
the Division Bench of the High Court adverted to all the
facts, which had bearing on the issue of delay including F
the one that on· the advice given by an advocate,
respondent No.1 had availed other remedies; and opined
that the delay had been adequately explained. Thus, it
cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the High
Court to entertain and decide the writ petition filed by G
respondent No.1 on merits is vitiated by any patent legal
infirmity. [para 24] [739-H; 740-A-B]
1.6. It is true that the writ petitions filed by the
brothers of respondent l\lo.1 had been dismissed by the
H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 11 S.C.R.
A Single Judge on the ground of delay and the writ appeals
and the special leave petitions filed against the order of
the Single Judge were dismissed by the Division Bench
of the High Court and this Court respectively, but that
could not be made the basis for denying relief to
B respondent No.1 because his brothers had neither
questioned the diversification of land to private persons
nor did they pray for restoration of their respective
shares. Besides, summary dismissal of special leave
petitions did not amount to this Court's approval of the
c view taken by the High Court on the legality of the
acquisition and transfer of land to private persons. [para
24] [740-C-D; 741-A]
Kunhayammed v. State of Kera/a 2000 ( 1 ) Suppl.
SCR · 538 =
(2000) 6 sec 359 - relied on.
D
2.1. It is pertinent to mention that the Committee of
the Karnataka Legislature on Public Undertakings had in
its Fifty-Second Report severely criticized the exercise
undertaken by the Corporati-:>n in the matter of
E acquisition of 39 acres 27 guntas land. [Para 15] [731-B]
Fifty-Second report of Committee of the Karnataka
Legislature on Public Undertaking - referred to.
2.2. In Mrs. Behroze Ramyar Batha's case, the Division
F Bench of the High Court categorically held that the
exercise undertaken for the acquisition of land was
vitiated due to fraud. The Division Bench was also of the
view that the acquisition could not be valid in part and
invalid in other parts, but did not nullify all the transfers
G on the premise that other writ petitions and a writ appeal
involving challenge to the acquisition proceedings were
pending. In Annaiah's case the same Division Bench
specifically adverted to the issue of diversification of
purpose and held that where the landowners are
H
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 709
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS.
deprived of their land under the cover of public purpose A
and there is diversification of land for a private purpose,
it amounts to fraudulent exercise of the power of eminent
domain. [para 25) [741-C-E]
2.3. The pleadings and documents filed by the parties
8
clearly show that the Corporation had made a false
projection to the State Government that the land was
needed for execution of tourism related projects. In the
meeting of officers held on 13.1.1987, i.e. after almost four
years of the issue of declaration u/s 6, the Managing
Director of the Corporation candidly admitted that the C
Corporation did not have the requisite finances to pay for
the acquisition of land and that a developer who had
already entered into agreements with some of the
landowners for purchase of land, was prepared to
provide funds subject to certain conditions including D
transfer of 12 acres 34 guntas land to him for house
building project. After 8 months, the Corporation passed
resolution for transfer of over 12 acres land to the said
developer. The Corporation also transferred two other
parcels of land in favour of Bangalore International Centre E
and the predecessor of appellant No.1. These
transactions reveal the true design of the officers of the
Corporation, who first succeeded in persuading the State
Government to acquire huge chunk of land for a public
purpose and then transferred major portion of the F
acquired land to private individual and corporate entities
by citing poor financial health of the Corporation as the
cause for doing so. [para 26) [741-F-H; 742-A-8]
2.4. The Courts have repeatedly held that in exercise G
of its power of eminent domain, the State can
compulsorily acquire land of the private persons but this
proposition cannot be over-stretched to legitimize a
patently illegal and fraudulent exercise undertaken for
depriving the landowners of their constitutional right to I-'
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A property with a view to favour private persons. It needs
no emphasis that if land is to be acquired for a company,
the State Government and the company is bound. to
comply with the mandate of the provisions contained in
Part VII of the Act. [para 26) [742-C-D)
B
2.5. Therefore, the Corporation. did not have the
jurisdiction to transfer the land acquired for a public
purpose to the companies and thereby allow them to
bypass the provisions of Part VII. The diversification of
C the purpose for which the land was acquired u/s 4(1) read
with s. 6 clearly amounted to fraud on the power of
eminent domain. This is precisely what the High Court
has held in the judgment under appeal and this Court
does not find any valid ground to interfere with the same
more so because in Annaiah's case the High Court had
D quashed the notifications issued u/ss 4(1) and 6 in their
entirety and that judgment has become final. [para 26)
[742-E-F]
2.6. In the instant case, respondent No.1
E independently questioned the acquisition proceedings
and transfer of the acquired land to the predecessor of
appellant No.1. He approached the High Court for
vindication of his right and succeeded in convincing the
Division Bench that the action taken by the Corporation
F to transfer his land to the private entity was wholly illegal,
arbitrary and unjustified. [para 27) [743-A-B]
Om Parka sh v. Union of India 2010 (2 ) SCR 447 =
(2010) 4 sec 17 - distinguished.
G Case Law Reference:
AIR 1989 Bombay 156 referred to para 4
1992 (2) SCR 155 relied ort para 18
1974 (2) SCR 216 relied on para 19
H
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 711
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS.
(2011) 5 SCC 607 relied on para 19 A
1964 SCJ (Blue Print) September 283 relied on
para 21
2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 538 relied on para 24
B
2010 (2) SCR447 distinguished para 27
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7588 of 2005.
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.4.2005 of the High c
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 7772 of 1999 (LA-
RES}.
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 7589 of 2005 D
S.S. Naganand, Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Mahendra Anand,
Rajesh Mahale, Raghavendra S. Srivastava, B. Subramonium
Prasad, Anirudh Panganeria (for A.S. Bhasme}, G.V.
Chandrashekar, N.K. Verma and T.N. Vishwanatha (for P.P. E
Singh} for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Whether land acquired by the State
Government at the instance of the Karnataka State Tourism F
Development Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation') for the
specified purpose i.e. Golf-cum-Hotel Resort near Bangalore
Airport, Bangalore could be transferred by the Corporation to
a private individual and corporate entities is the question which
arises for determination in these appeals filed against the G
judgment of the Karnataka Higb Court whereby the acquisition
of land measuring 1 acre 3 guntas comprised in Survey No.122
of Kodihalli village, Bangalore South Taluk was quashed.
H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 11 S.C.R.
A The facts relating to the acquisition of land and details of
the 3 cases decided by the High Court in 1991:
2. On a requisition sent by the Corporation, the State
Government issued notification dated 29.12.1981 under
B Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the
Act') for the acquisition of 39 acres 27 guntc;s land comprised
in various survey numbers including Survey No.122 of Kodihalli
and Challaghatta villages, Bangalore South Taluk. After
considering the reports submitted by the Special Deputy
C Commissioner, Bangalore under Section 5A(2) and Section
6(1 A) (added by the Karnataka Act No.17 of 1961 ), the State
Government issued declaration under Section 6 in respect of
37 acres 4 guntas land. A combined reading of the two
notifications makes it clear that the public purpose for which
land was sought to be acquired was to establish Golf-cum-Hotel
D Resort near Bangalore Airport, Bangalore by the Corporation.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award dated
7.4.1986. However, as will be seen hereinafter, instead of
utilizing the acquired land for the purpose specified in the
notifications or for any other public purpose, the Corporation
E transferred the same to private parties.
3. One Dayananda Pai, a real estate developer, who is
said to have entered into agreements with the landowners for
purchase of land comprised in Survey Nos.160/1, 160/2, 160/
F 3, 160/4, 163/1, 163/2, 164/1, 164/2, 165/1, 165/2, 165/3, 165/
4, 165/6, 166/1, 166/2, 166/3, 166/4, 153, 159, 167 for putting
up a group housing scheme and obtained approval from the
Bangalore Development Authority appears to be the person
behind the move made by the Corporation for the acquisition
G of land for execution of tourism related projects including Golf-
cum-Hotel Resort. This is the reason why his role prominently
figured in the meeting of senior officers of the Bangalore
Development Authority and the Corporation held on 13.1.1987
to discuss the steps to be taken for securing possession of the
H acquired land. In that meeting, Managing Director of the
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 713
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Corporation gave out that the Corporation does not have A
necessary finances for deposit of cost of the acquisition and
Dayananda Pai had agreed to provide funds subject to the
furnishing of bank guarantee by the Deputy Commissioner on
behalf of the Corporation and release of 12 acres 34 guntas
in his favour for the purpose of implementing the group housing B
scheme. In furtherance of the decision taken in that meeting,
an agreement dated 8.5.1987 was executed by the
Corporation in favour of Dayananda Pai conveying him 12
acres 34 guntas of the acquired land. Likewise, 6 acres 8
guntas land was transferred to Bangalore International Centre c
and 5 acres including 2 acres 30 guntas land belonging to
respondent No.1 and his brothers, G. Ramaiah Reddy and G.
Nagaraja Reddy, was leased out to M/s. Universal Resorts
Limited (predecessor of appellant No.1 in Civil Appeal No. 7588
of 2005).
D
4. Mrs. Behroze Ramyar Batha and others, who owned
different parcels of land which were transferred by the
Corporation to Dayananda Pai filed writ petitions questioning
the acquisition proceedings. The learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of delay. The Division E
Bench of the High Court reversed the order of the learned
Single Judge and quashed the acquisition proceedings qua
land of the appellants in those cases. The Division Bench
referred to the minutes of the meeting held on 13.1.1987,
resolution dated 10.9.1987 passed by the Corporation and F
observed:
" ........... We have made our comments then and there.
Nevertheless we cannot refrain our feelings in commenting
upon the same once over again. We cannot think of G
anything more despicable than the candid admission by
the Tourism Development Corporation that they did not
have the necessary funds required to meet .the cost of
acquisition. If really there was no amount available, how
the acquisition was embarked upon, we are left to the
H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 11 S.C.R.
A realm of guess. Not only that, this particular resolution
makes it appear that respondent-5 Dayanand Pai was the
only saviour of the Karnataka State Tourism Development
Corporation from the difficult situation. For our part we do
not know what exactly was the difficulty then, Land
B acquisition proceedings were complete in all material
respects. All that required was possession to be taken.
Merely because there are Writ Petitions or some cases
pending, does it mean that the Tourism Development
Corporation must plead helplessness? Does not it have
c the wherewithal to contest these litigations? Is it not a part
of the Government although it be a Corporation? What is
it that it wants to do? In consideration of the withdrawal of
the cases which were thorns in the flesh of the Tourist
Development Corporation, he is giXten of a silver salver an
extent of 12 acres 31 guntas of land. To say the least, it
D
appears right from the beginning respondent-5
Dayananda Pai had an eye on these lands. That would
be evident because though he entered into an agreement
on 30-9-1981 with the land-owners it never occurred to
him to put forth any objection during Section 5A Enquiry,
E nor again at any point of time did he take any interest.
He was patiently waiting for somebody to take chestnut
out of the fire so that he could have the fruits thereof That
is also evident from the Resolution dated 13-1-1987
wherein it is stated as under:
F
"Sri Dayananda Pai was very particular that the
block of land comprising of 12 acres 34 guntas
comprising the following Sy.Nos. 16011, 16012,
16013, 16014, 16311, 16312, 16411, 16412, 16511,
G 16512, 16513, 16514, 16516, 16611, 16612, 16613,
16614, 153, 159, 167 should be released to him
as he has got a firm commitment for putting up a
Group Housing Scheme on this land."
Yes. He might have had a commitment. What then is the
H
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 715
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
purpose of eminent domain? Eminent domain, as we A
consider and as it is settled law as was said by Nichols,
is an attribute of sovereignty. Where the Deputy
Commissioner is convinced that the lands are to be
acquired for a public purpose notwithstanding the fact that
the rig!1ts of the private parties might be interfered with, B
the acquisition will have to be gone through. In other words,
the private purpose must be subservient to public purpose.
Forget all that. In order to enable Dayananda Pai to fulfil
his commitment if valuable portion of the lands acquired
viz., 12 acres 31 guntas is transferred in his favour we c
cannot find a more vivid case of fraud on power than this.
We hold so because the apparent object as evidenced
by Section 4(1) Notification is a public purpose. If really
as was sought to be made out by the Resolution dated
13-1-1987 the Tourism Development Corporation was 0
anxious to have these lands and the delay was telling
upon it, certainly selling away the lands is not the solution
as we could see. Therefore, there has been a clear
diversification of purpose. Not only an extent of 12 acres
31 guntas have been sold away in favour of respondent- E
5 Dayanand Pai as has been !loted in the narration of
facts, 8 acres had come to be leased for Bangalore
International Centre and another 5 acres had come to be
leased for the amusement park. Why all these if the
Tourism Development Corporation does not have funds
to meet the cost of acquisition? Therefore it appears to F
us this is nothing more than a conspiracy to deprive the
owners of the lands by use of the power of the eminent
domain which is to be used for an avowedly public
purpose and for strong compelling reasons and not
whimsically or to satisfy the private needs of an G
individual."
(emR~sis supplied)
''
The Division Bench then referred to some judicial
H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 11 S.C.R.
A precedents including the judgment in Industrial Development
& Investment Company Private Limited v. State of
Maharashtra AIR 1989 Bombay 156 and observed:
" ........... But, in the case on hand what is most striking is
B negotiations took place even before taking possession of
lands. On 8-5-1987 agreement was entered into and in the
wake of taking possession on 12-11-1987, transfers are
made on 23-3-1988 and 24-3-1988. This is where we
consider that with the motive of securing lands to
respondent-5 Dayanand Pai, acquisition had come to be
\C embarked upon. This was the reason why we conclude that
this is a case of fraudulent exercise of power. It is no
consolation to say that the owners of lands have accepted
the compensation because in Industrial Development &
Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra it is
D stated thus: ·
"... The State itself which has acted illegally and
without jurisdiction cannot plead that it should be
allowed to retain the sum awarded in its favour by
E the Land Acquisition Officer. Respondent 5 who is
described as the owner of the land has conveyed
to us that it would submit to the order of the Court.
We also record the submission of Mr. Dhanuka,
learned Counsel for the appellants, that in the event
F the other awardees who were awarded paltry sums
by the award under Section 11 Land Acquisition
Act, do not refund sums withdrawn, the appellants
are prepared to refund and/or deposit the said
sums. Therefore, we conclude that on the ground
of delay the appellants could not be deprived of the
G
relief to which they were otherwise entitled."
The ratio of this case squarely applies here. Nor again, in
our considared opinion, the previous Decisions upholding
the validity of the acquisitions would be of any value
H because as we have observed earlier the causes of action
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 717
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.)
arose only on 23-3-1988 and 24-3-1988 when the A
transfers came to be effected, or on subsequent days
when-leases had come to be effected. Therefore, where
in ignorance of these transactions if compensation had
come to be accepted we should not put that against such
of those land owners. But that question does not arise in B
this case. Therefore, we shall relegate the same to the
other cases.
Lastly, what remains to be seen is what is the effect of
fraud. Does it render the entire acquisition bad or is it to C
be held to be bad only in so far as these appellants are
concerned? We are of the view that if fraud unravels
everything, it cannot be valid in part and invalid in other
parts. But, we need not go to that extent because there are
other Writ Petitions including a Writ Appeal in which this
question may arise direct. We do not want to prejudice D
those petitioners/appellants. Therefore, this question we
relegate to those cases. n
(emphasis supplied)
E
5. Annaiah and others, who owned land comprised in
Survey Nos.146/1, 156/1, 147/1, 147/2 and 158, filed Writ
Petition Nos.9032 to 9041 of 1988 questioning the acquisition
of their land. The same were dismissed by the learned Single
Judge on the ground of delay. Thereafter, they filed Writ Petition
Nos.19812 to 19816 of 1990 for issue of a mandamus to the F
State Government and the Corporation to return the land by
asserting that the same had been illegally transferred to private
persons. They pleaded that the acquisition proceedings were
vitiated due to mala tides and misuse of power for oblique and
collateral purpose. Those petitions were allowed by the Division G
Bench of the High Court vide order dated 18.9.1991, the
relevant portions of which are extracted below:
"In our considered view, it is one thing to say that
acquisition is actuated by legal malafides, but it is totally H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A different thing to say that acquisition for all intents and
purposes is embarked on an apparent public purpose and
ultimately that purpose is not served. In other words, what
we mean is their where the lands have been acquired,
undoubtedly for public purpose for the benefit of the
B Karnataka ·State Tourism Development Corporation and
after acquisition, even before taking possession, if
agreements were entered into on the ground that the
Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation did not
have enough money to meet the cost of acquisition and
c that it would be better to get rid of the litigation by selling
away the same or leasing away the properties and thereby
give it to private individuals. We are of the view that it is a
clear case of diversification of purpose. It requires to be
carefully noted that it is not for any public purpose. But it
is a diversification to a private purpose. Therefore, to the
D
extent the acquisition proceeded with even up to the
stage of declaration under Section 6 or to certain point
beyond that, it could not be validly challenged on the
ground that it is not for public purpose. But where under
the cover of public purpose, the owners are dispossessed
E and there is diversifications, we hold that it is fraudulent
exercise of the power of eminent domain. This is exactly
•
the view we have taken in W.A. Nos.1094 to 1097of1987.
This aspect of the matter was not before our learned
brother Justice Bopanna. All that was stated was the
F acquisition, namely, Notification under Section 4(1)
culminating in Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
not actuated by legal malafides. That is far different from
diversification for public purpose. It might be that
agreements dated 23.03.1988 and 24.03.1988 might have
G been buttressed in respect of legal malafides. On that
score we cannot conclude that the issue as dealt with by
us in W.A. Nos. 1094 to 1097 of 1987 was ever before
Justice· Bopanna. Therefore, we are unable to agree with
Mr. Datar that the earlier ruling of Justice Bopanna in W.P.
H Nos.9032 to 9041 of 1988 dated 8th July 1988 would
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 719
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
constitute res judicata so as to deprive the Petitioners of A
the benefit of the Judgment.
The cause of action challenging the validity of acquisition
arose not after issue of final notification under section 6
but after the alienation of lands in favour of third parties B
and thus the Corporation in whose favour the lands have
been acquired have been deviated. In my opinion the
decision rendered in Mrs. Behroze Ramyar Batha is fully
applicable to the facts of this case. It is true that acquisition
is challenged after quite a long time to final notification. But C
challenge is not made to the legality of the acquisition. The
challenge is to deviation of the purpose for which the land
was acquired. That then is the eminent domain was the
question posed by the Division Bench and answered in the
words of Nichols as an attribute of sovereignty. Acquisition
in this case is actuated by malafides. Though lands were D
acquired for public purpose as declared in 6(1)
notification and possession was taken for the said public
purpose, agreements were entered into even before
possession was taken to part with substantial portion of
the land. Where object of providing lands to a private . E
individuals, if acquisition proceedings are reported to or
power of eminent domain comes to be exercised, it would
nothing more than fraud on power. There it is a case of
fraud it would unrevea/ everything. It cannot be valid in
part and invalid in other parts (See Lazarus Estates Ltd. F
VS. Gurdial Singh - AIR 1980 SC 319: Pratap Singh v.
State of Punjab - AIR 1964 SC 73: Narayana Reddy v.
State of Karnataka- ILR 1991 KAR. 2248.) Therefore the
question of limitation does not arise in such cases.
Where the actions are found to be ma/a fide, courts haye G
not failed to strive down those actions as laid down by the.
Supreme Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab's case
cited supra."
(emphasis supplied)
H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A The operative portion of the order passed in that case is
extracted below:
"In the result, we allow these writ petitions quash the
notification issued under Section 4(1) and the declaration
under Section 6 of the Act and all subsequent
B
proceedings."
6. Smt. H.N. Lakshmamma and others also questioned the
acquisition of their land comprised in Survey Nos.165/3 and
166/4 of Kodihalli village. The writ petition filed by them was
C dismissed. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court
framed the following question:
"Whether in view of the judgment cited above,
namely, W.A. Nos.1094 & 1095/87 and W.P.
D 19812 to 19816/90 wherein we have held that the
land acquisition proceedings concerning the very
same notification and declaration are liable to be
set aside on the ground of fraudulent exercise of
power, could be extended in favour of the
appellants?"
E
The Division Bench relied upon the passages from
Administrative Law by W.H.R. Wade and De Smith and Ker
on Fraud and rejected the plea of the respondents (appellants
herein) that by having accepted the amount of compensation,
F the writ petitioners will be deemed to have acquiesced in the
acquisition proceedings. The Division Bench then referred to
the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Industrial
Development & Investment Company Private Limited v. State
of Maharashtra (supra) and the order passed in Writ Petition
G Nos. 19812 - 19816 of 1990 and held that the appellants are
entitled to return of land subject to the condition of deposit of
the amount of compensation together with interest at the rate
of 12% per annum.
H
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 721
JAYARAM REDDY AND"ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Facts relating to transfer of land owned by respondent A
No.1 and his brothers and details of the cases filed by
them:
7. After receiving compensation in respect of 2 acres 30
guntas land comprised in Survey No.122 of Kodihalli village, 8
respondent No.1 and his brothers filed applications under
Section 18 of the Act for making reference to the Court for
determination of the compensati<?n. During the pendency of
reference, the Corporation invited bids for allotment of 5 acres
land including 2 acres 30 guntas belonging to respondent No.1
and his brothers for putting up a tourist resort. M/s. Universal C
Resorts Limited gave the highest bid, which was accepted by
the Corporation and lease agreement dated 21.4.1989 was
executed in favour of the bidder. Thereafter, the Corporation
approached the State Government for grant of permission
under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) D
Act, 1976 for leasing out a portion of the acquired land to M/s.
Universal Resorts Limited, The State Government granted the
required permission vide order dated 17.6.1991. After 6
months, registered lease deed dated 9.1.1992 was executed
by the Corporation in favour of Mis. Universal Resorts Limited E
through its Managing Director, Sri C.K. Baljee purporting to
lease out 5 acres land for a period of 30 years on an annual
rent of Rs.1, 11, 111/- per acre for the first 1O years.
8. In the meanwhile, Shri C.K. Baljee, Managing Director F
of Mis. Universal Resorts Limited filed suit for injunction against
respondent No.1 and his brothers by alleging that they were
trying to forcibly encroach upon the acquired land. He also filed
an application for temporary injunction. By an ex parte order
dated 29.10.1991, the trial Court restrained respondent No, 1 G
and his brothers from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After
about two years, the brothers of respondent No.1 filed Writ
Petition Nos.2379 and 2380 of 1993 for quashing the
acquisition of land measuring 0.29 guntas and 0.38 guntas H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A respectively, which came to their share in the family partition
effected in 1968. They relied upon the judgments of the Division
Bench in Mrs. Behroze Ramyar Batha and others v. Special
Land Acquisition Officer (supra) and Writ Appeal No.2605 of
1991 - Smt. H.N. Lakshmamma and others v. State of
s Karnataka and others decided on 3.10.1991 and pleaded that
once the acquisition has been quashed at the instance of other
landowners, the acquisition of their land is also liable to be
annulled. The appellants, who were respondents in those cases,
pleaded that the writ petitions should be dismissed because 5
c acres land had been leased out by adopting a transparent
method and there was no justification to nullify the acquisition
after long lapse of time. The learned Single Judge did notice
the judgments of the Division Bench on which reliance was
placed by the writ petitioners but distinguished the same by
D making the following observations:
"The dictum therein cannot be applied to the instant case.
The land of the petitioners were acquired for the public
purpose of Golf-cum-Hotel Re. sort near the Airport. The
statement of objection filed by respondents 4 and 5 clearly
E shows that the land was transferred to them for the need
of tourist industry namely construction of Hotel/Tourist
Complex. The order passed by the Government exempting
the 3rd Respondent from the purview of the Urban Land
(Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 also shows the intended
F transfer being made by the 3rd respondent is for the
establishing of Hotel/Tourist Complex. This is also borne
out from the lease deeds executed by respondents 4 and
5. These materials are sufficient to hold that the land is
being put by the 3rd respondent for the purpose for which
G it was acquired. These materials are sufficient for this
court for the present and indeed from conducting any
further rowing enquiry on the basis of the allegation made
by the petitioners in this writ petition. Without anything more
it can be held that the dictum of the decision of this Court
H . referred to supra is inapplicable to the facts of the present
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 723
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
case. Hence, the petitioners cannot take shelter under the A
said decision viz. ILR 1991 Karnataka 3556 and
successfully challenge the land acquisition proceedings."
The learned Single Judge finally dismissed the writ
petitions by observing that even though the writ petitioners were B
aware of the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court in the
suit filed by the Managing Director, M/s. Universal Resorts
Limited - C.K. Baljee, they did not question the acquisition for
a period of almost two years and approached the Court after
long lapse of time counted from the date of acquisition. Writ C
Appeal Nos.4536 and 4541 of 1995 filed by G. Ramaiah
Reddy and G. Nagaraja Reddy were dismissed by the Division
Bench of the High Court on 1.1.1996 by a one word order and
the special leave petitions filed by them were summarily
dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.2.1996.
D
9. In a separate petition filed by him, which came to be
registered as Writ Petition No.34891. of 1995, respondent No.1
prayed for quashing notifications dated 29.12.1981 and
16.4.1983 insofar as the same related to 1 acre 3 guntas land
comprised in Survey No.122/1 of Kodihalli village and forissue E
of a mandamus to respondent Nos.3 to 5 (the appellants herein)
to redeliver possession of the said land. He pleaded that in the
garb of acquiring land for a public purpose, the official
respondents have misused the provisions of the Act with the
sole object of favouring private persons. In the counter affidavits F
filed on behalf of the appellants, it was pleaded that the writ
petition was highly belated and that by having accepted the
compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, respondent No.1 will be deemed to have waived his
right to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
G
10. The writ petition filed by respondent No.1 was decided
in two rounds. In the first round, the learned Single Judge
rejected the objection of delay raised by the appellants. He
referred to the judgments of the High Court in Mrs. Behroze
Ramyar Batha and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A (supra) and Writ Appeal No.2605 of 1991 - Smt. H.N.
Lakshmamma and others v. State of Karnataka and others
(supra) declined to follow the course adopted by the coordinate
Bench, which had dismissed the writ petitions filed by the
brothers of respondent No.1 and observed:
B
" ......................... The cause of action challenging the
validity of acquisition arose not after issue of final
notification under section 6 but after the alienation of lands
in favour of third parties and thus the Corporation in whose
favour the lands have been acquired have been deviated.
c In my opinion the decision rendered in Mrs. Behroze
Ramyar Batha is fully applicable to the facts of this case.
It is true that acquisition is challenged after quite a long
time to final notification. But challenge is not made to the
legality of the acquisition. The challenge is to deviation of
D the purpose for which the land was acquired. That then is
the eminent domain was the question posed by the
Division Bench and answered in the words of Nichols as
an attribute of sovereignty. Acquisition in this case is
actuated by malafides. Though lands were acquired for
E public purpose as declared in 6(1) notification and
possession was taken for the said public purpose,
agreements were entered into even before possession
was taken to part with substantial portion of the land.
Where object of providing lands to a private individuals, if
F acquisition proceedings are reported to or power of
eminent domain comes to be exercised, it would nothing
more than fraud on power. There it is a case of fraud it
would unreveal everything. It cannot be valid in part and
invalid in other parts (See Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Gurdial
G Singh - AIR 1980 SC 319: Pratap Singh v. State of
Punjab - AIR 1964 SC 73: Narayana Reddy v. State of
Karnataka- ILR 1991 Kar. 2248). Therefore the question
of limitation does not arise in such cases. Where the
actions are found to be mala fide, courts have not failed
H to strive down those actions as laid down by the Supreme
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 725
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab's case cited A
supra,"
11. The writ appeals filed by the appellants were allowed
by the Division Bench on the ground that the learned Single
Judge was not justified in ignoring the order passed by the
8
coordinate Bench. The Division Bench observed that merits of
the case could have been considered only if he was convinced
that the writ petitioner had given cogent explanation for the delay
and, accordingly, remitted the matter for fresh disposal of the
writ petition.
c
12. In the second round, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition by observing that even though fraud
vitiates all actions, the Court is not bound to give relief to the
petitioner ignoring that he had approached the Court after long
lapse of time. Writ Appeal No. 7772 of 1999 filed by respondent D
No.1 was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
While dealing with the question whether the learned Single
Judge was justified in non suiting respondent No.1 on the
ground of delay, the Division Bench referred to the explanation
given by him, took cognizance of the fact that even after lapse E
of more than a decade and half land had not been put to any
use and observed:
"................. .It is the definite case of the appellant that he
came to know of the fraud committed by the 3rd
respondent in diverting the acquired land clandestinely in F
favour of Respondents 4 and 5 and certain others, that too,
for the purpose other than the purpose for which the land
was acquired, only in the year 1993. It is his further case
that even then, he did not approach this Court for legal
remedies immediately after he came to know of the fraud G
committed by the 3rd respondent and also the judgment
of this Court in the case of Batha (supra), because, under
a wrong legal advice, he filed I.A.I. in L.A.C. No. 37 of
1988. In other words, even after the appellant came to
know of the fraud committed by the 3rd respondent, under H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A a wrong advice, he was prosecuting his case before a
wrong forum. The question for consideration is whether that
circumstance can be taken into account for condoning the
delay. A three Judge aench of the Supreme Court in the
case of Badlu and another. v. Shiv Charan and others.,
B (1980) 4 sec 401 where a party under a wrong advice
given to .them by their lawyer was pursuing an appeal
bonafide and in good faith in wrong Court, held that the
time taken for such prosecution should be condoned and
took exception to the order of the High Court in dismissing
c the second appeal. Further, the Supreme Court in Mis
Concord of India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt.
Nirmala Devi and Others., [1979] 11 8 ITR 507 (SC) has
held that the delay caused on account of the mistake of
counsel can be sufficient cause to condone the delay and
the relief should not be refused on the ground that the
D
manager of company is not an illiterate or so ignorant
person who could not calculate period of limitation.
It is the further case of the appellant that only in the month
of September, 1995 he was advised by another counsel
E that the appellant was wrongly prosecuting his case before
the Civil Court by filing I.A.I. in L.A.C. No. 37 of 1988 and
that the civil court has no jurisdiction to quash the
notification issued under Section 4(1) and declaration
under Section 6(1) of the Act and for that relief, he should
F necessarily file writ petition in this Court. The appellant on
receiving such advice from the counsel, without any further
loss of time, filed the present Writ Petition No. 34891 of
1995 in this Court on 18-9-1995. It further needs to be
noticed that the pleading of the appellant would clearly
G demonstrate that but for the fraud committed by the 3rd
respondent in diverting the acquired land in favour of
respondents 4 and 5 and others clandestinely for the
purposes other than the purpose for which it was acquired,
perhaps, the appellant would not have challenged the land
acquisition proceedings at all. It is his definite case that
H
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 727
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
he was approaching this Court under Article 226 for A
quashing the impugned notifications only because the
acquired land was sought to be diverted by the 3rd
respondent-beneficiary in favour of third parties, that too,
for the purposes other than the one for which it was
acquired and the acquisition of the entire extent of land B
under the same notification in its entirety is already
quashed by this Court as fraud on power and tainted by
malafide. Therefore, the Court has necessarily to consider
the question of delay and !aches in the premise of the
specific case of the appellant and it will be totally unfair c
and unjust to take into account only the dates of Section
4(1) notification and Section 6(1) declaration. It is also
necessary to take into account the fact that well before the
appellant approached this Court, the Division Bench of this
Court in Writ Appeal No. 2605 of 1991 and Writ Petition D
Nos. 19812 to 19816 of 1990 preferred by certain other
owners of the acquired land vide its orders dated 18-9-
1991 and 3-10-1991 had already quashed Section 4(1)
Notification and Section 6(1) declaration in their entirety
and directed the State Government and the LAO to
handover the acquired land to the owners concerned on
E
red positing of the compensation money received by the
owners with 12% interest p.a. In that view of the matter, it
is trite, the acquisition of the schedule land belonging to
the appellant also stood quashed by virtue of the above
judgments of the Division Bench. Strictly speaking, the F
State Government and the LAO even in the absence of a
separate challenge by the appellant to the land acquisition
proceedings, in terms of the orders made in the above writ
appeal and writ petitions, ought to have handed over the
schedule land to the appellant by collecting the amount of G
money received by him as compensation with interest at
12% p.a. Be that as it may, the appellant as an abundant
caution separately filed writ petition for quashing of the
notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act
with regard to the schedule land. The relief cannot be H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A refused to the appellant, because, the appellant herein and
the appellants in Writ Appeal Nos. 1094-1097of1987 and
W.A. No. 2065 of 1991 and the petitioners in Writ petition
Nos. 19812 to 19816 of 1990 are all owners of the
acquired land under the same notifications and all of them
B belong to a 'well-defined class' for the purpose of Article
14 of the Constitution. There is absolutely no warrant or
justification to extend different treatment to the appellant
herein simply, because, he did not join the other owners
at an earlier point of time. It is not that all the owners of
c the acquired land except the appellant instituted the writ
petitions jointly and the appellant alone sat on fence
awaiting the decision in the writ petitions filed by the other
owners. Some writ petitions were filed in the year 1987
and other writ petitions in the year 1990 as noted above.
Since the appellant came to know of the fraud committed
D
by the 3rd respondent only in the year 1993 after this Court
delivered the judgment in Batha's case (supra) and since
he was prosecuting his case before a wrong forum under
a wrong legal advice and therefore, the time so consumed
has to be condoned in view of the judgment of the Supreme
E
Court already referred to above, we are of the considered
opinion that the learned single Judge is not justified in
dismissing the writ petition 0!1 the ground of delay and
laches.
F It needs to be noticed further that admittedly, no
developments have taken place in the scheaule land
despite considerable passage of time. Further more,
admittedly, no rights of third parties are created in the
schedule land. The schedule land being a meagre extent
G of land compared to the total extent ot land acquired for
the public purpose, cannot be put to use for which it was
originally acquired. Looking from any angle, we do not find
any circumstance on the basis of which we would be
justified in refusing the relief on the ground of delay and
H !aches even assuming that there was some delay on the
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED ANDANR. v. G. 729
JAYARAM REDDYAND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
part of the appellant before approaching this Court by way A
of writ petition in the year 1995."
The Division Bench then referred to orders dated
18.9.1991 and 3.10.1991 passed in Writ Petition Nos.19812
to 19816 of 1990 -Annaiah and others v. State of Kamataka
B
and others and Writ Appeal No.2605 of 1991 - Smt. H.N.
Lakshmamma and others v. State of Karnataka and others
(supra) respectively and held:
" .............................Since the appellant herein and the
appellants and writ petitioners in W.A.No. 2605 of 1991 C
and W.P. Nos. 19812 to 19816 of 1990 are the owners
of the acquired land under the same notification and
similarly circumstanced in every material aspect, they
should be regarded as the persons belonging to a 'well-
defined class' for. the purpose of Article 14 of the D
Constitution. In other words, the appellant herein is also
entitled to the same relief which this Court granted in Writ
Appeal No. 2605 of 1991 and W.P. Nos. 19812 to 19816
of 1990 to the owners therein. Apart from that, as already
pointed out, the schedule land is a very meagre land E
compared to the total extent of land acquired and except
the schedule land the acquisition of the remaining land has
been set at naught and the possession of the land has
been handed over to the owners. The schedule land being
a meagre in extent, cannot be used for the purpose for F
which it was acquired. That is precisely the reason why the
schedule land is kept in the same position as it was on
the date of Section 4(1) notification without any
improvement or development."
The arguments: G
13. Shri Basava Prabhu S. Patil and Shri S.S. Naganand,
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants criticized
the impugned judgment and argued that the Division Bench of
. the High Court committed serious error by entertaining and H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 11 S.C.R.
A allowing the writ appeal filed by respondent No.1 despite the
fact that the writ petitions, the writ appeals and the special leave
petitions filed by his brothers had been dismissed by the High
Court and this Court. Learned counsel submitted that even
though judgments and order passed by the Division Bench in
B other cases had become final, relief could not have been given
to respondent No.1 by overlooking the unexplained delay of 12
years. They further submitted that the cause of action for
challenging the transfer of land in favour of Mis. Universal
Resorts Limited accrued to respondent No.1 in 1992 when
c registered lease deed was executed by the Corporation and
the Division Bench of the High Court was not at all justified in
entertaining the prayer of respondent No.1 after lapse of more
than three years. Shri Naganand relied upon the judgment of
this Court in Om Parkash v. Union of India (2010) 4 SCC 17
D and argued that quashing of notifications by the High Court in
three other cases would enure to the benefit of only those who
approached the Court within reasonable time and respondent
No.1, who had kept quiet for 12 years cannot take advantage
of the same. Shri Naganand lamented that even though his
clients had given highest bid in May, 1987 and lease deed
E was executed in January, 1992, they have not been able to
utilize the land on account of pendency of litigation for last more
than 16 years and have suffered huge financial loss.
14. Shri Mahendra Anand, learned senior counsel
F appearing for respondent No.1 supported the impugned
judgment and argued that the Division Bench of the High Court
did not commit any error by directing return of land to
respondent No.1 because acquisition thereof was vitiated by
fraud. Learned senior counsel emphasised that in view of the
G unequivocal finding recorded in Mrs. Behroze Ramyar Batha
and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra) and
other cases that land acquired for the specified public purpose,
i.e. Golf-cum-Hotel Resort could not have been transferred to
private persons and that there was conspiracy t9 deprive the
H
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 731
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
owners of their land by use of the power of eminent domain, A
the Division Bench rightly annulled the action of the Corporation.
15. Before dealing with the arguments of the learned
counsel, we may mention that the Committee of the Karnataka
Legislature on Public Undertakings had in its Fifty-Second B
Report severely criticized the exercise undertaken by the
Corporation in the matter of acquisition of 39 acres 27 guntas
land. This is evident from paragraph 2.24 of the Report, Which
is extracted below:
"2.24. After full examination, the Committee makes the C
follow-ing observations and recommendations.:
(i) Most of the projects envisaged to be taken up in 1981
and subsequently by the Company were farfetched and
grandiose ones lacking in the basic sense of realism as D
regards details and specifies assured modes of financing,
benefits and income to be derived and viability. By no
stretch of imagination, could they be deemed to meet the
main objectives of the Company to promote and maximise
tourism by offering catering, lodging, recreational, picnic E
and other facilities to as broad a spectrum of tourists as
possible. In fact, they were designed mainly to cater to the
requirements of a small number of elitist and affluent
tourists and could never have boosted tourism in the State.
For these grave dereliction of duties, the Committee holds
the then Managing Directors and the then Govern-rnent
F
nominees on the Board of Directors, as responsible.
(ii) The proper and sound objections raised by Government
in August, 1984 went unheeded by successive Boards of
Directors of the Company who pursued with reckless G
abandon their fanciful schemes and led the Company on
a wild goose chase. As a result, ultimately, the Company
has been left virtually holding the sack with none of these
schemes materialising and the Company having been put
to an infructuous expenditure of Rs.18.97 lakhs towards H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A interest on the bank borrowings to finance land acquisition,
not to speak of the wasted precious time and effort of the
whole Management and organi-sation of the Company for
nearly 10 years. The then Managing Director of the
Company, Sri K. Sreenivasan and the Boards of Directors
B of the Company at the relevant periods have to bear
responsibility in this regard.
(iii) In the opinion of the Committee, the Company had an
opportunity to reconsider and give up these unnecessary
schemes when it encountered difficulties in acquiring the
c required land of 39 acres in 1986-87 as a result of the land
owners/power of attorney holders moving the Courts for
stay of the acquisition proceedings. Instead, the Company
opted to pursue the acquisition of land even at the cost of
surrendering 14 acres and 8 guntas of land (out of 23
D acres 36 guntas acquired) to Sri Dayananda Pai, a power
of attorney holder, for a group housing scheme for
employees of public/private sector undertakings, which
was a purpose/scheme not contemplated by the Company
and in no way connected with the Company's objectives.
E The so-called compromise Agreement of March 1987 with
Sri Dayananda Pai had the effect of only compromising
the Company's interests in that it contained no provisions
regarding commitment and penalties on Sri Dayananda
Pai to assist the Company to acquire the entire lands of
F 39 acres 27 guntas while he was presented with 14 acres
8 guntas of land on a platter as it were for executing the
group housing scheme for his purpose and pecuniary
benefits.
Whether Sri Dayananda Pai has really implemented the
G
Group Housing Scheme in Challaghatta for the employees
of Public and Private Undertakings is not clear. The
Committee wants Government to find out the true position
in this regard and intimate the Committee.
H In the end, with all this compromise, the Company could
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 733
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
acquire and take possession of only 23 acres and 36 A
guntas (as against 39 acres and 27 guntas envisaged) of
which 14 acres and 8 guntas were parted to Sri
Dayananda Pai, and the Company was left with only 9
acres 28 guntas for its schemes. Further, to go through with
the acquisition, the Company has to borrow Rs. 43.54 B
lakhs from the Canara Bank for depositing with the land
acquisition authorities and had to incur interest charges of
Rs.18.97 lakhs, which have become infructuous. There
were highly injudicious acts leading to avoidable loss of
Rs.18.97 lakhs.
c
(iv) The Committee notes that out of more than seven
projects envisaged in 1981, the Company, is a result of
the tortuous and adverse developments, omissions,
commissions and irregularities described in the preceding
paragraphs, could manage to initiate only two schemes, D
viz., International Centre and Tourist Complex and, that too
only to the extent of handing over land to the concerned
parties, viz. Bangalore International Centre and Mis.
Universal Resorts Limited. Even these two schemes have
remained non-starters because in the first case the Board E
of Directors of the Company did not approve the leasing
of land and in the second case the initial formalities like
registration of sale deed, urban land clearance etc. have
dragged on.
F
In this connection, the Committee takes serious note of the
fact that possession of lands was given by the Company
to Bangalore International Centre and M/s. Universal
Resorts Ltd., prematurely without obtaining approval of the
Board of Directors or completing even the initial formalities
etc., as the case may be." G
16. The first question which needs consideration is
whether the High Court committed an error by granting relief
to respondent No.1 despite the fact that he filed writ petition
after long lapse of time and the explanation given by him was H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A found unsatisfactory by the learned Single Judge, who decided
the writ petition after remand by the Division Bench.
17. Although, framers of the Constitution have not
prescribed any period of limitation for filing a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the power conferred
8 upon the High Court to issue to any person or authority including
any Government, directions, orders or writs including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo-
warranto and certiorari is not hedged with any condition or
constraint, in last 61 years the superior Courts have evolved
C several rules of self-imposed restraint including the one that the
High Court may not enquire into belated or stale claim and deny
relief to the petitioner if he is found guilty of laches. The principle
underlying this rule is that the one who is not vigilant and does
not seek intervention of the Court within reasonable time from
D the date of accrual of cause of action or alleged violation of
constitutional, legal or other right is not entitled to relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution. Another reason for the High
Court's refusal to entertain belated claim is that during the
intervening period rights of third parties may have crystallized
E and it will be inequitable to disturb those rights at the instance
of a person who has approached the Court after long lapse of
time and there is no cogent explanation for the delay. We may
hasten to add that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and
no straightjacket formula can be evolved for deciding the
F question of delay/laches and each case has to be decided on
its own facts.
18. In Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited v.
District Board, Bhojpur (1992) 2 SCC 598, this Court set aside
the judgment of the Patna High Court whereby the writ petition
G filed by the appellant against the demand notice issued for levy
of cess for the period 1953-54 to 1966-67 was dismissed only
on the ground of delay. The facts of that case show that the writ
petition filed by the appellant questioning the demand for 1967-
68 to 1971-72 was allowed by the High Court. However, the
H
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 735
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
writ petition questioning the demand of the earlier years was A
dismissed on the premise that the petitioner was guilty of
laches. While dealing with the question of delay, this Court
observed:
"The question thus for consideration is whether the 8
appellant should be deprived of the relief on account of the
laches and delay. It is true that the appellant could have
even when instituting the suit agitated the question of
legality of the demands and claimed relief in respect of the
earlier years while challenging the demand for the C
subsequent years in the writ petition. But the failure to do
so by itself in the circumstances of the case, in our opinion,
does not disentitle the appellant from the remedies open
under the law. The demand is per se not based on the net
profits of the immovable property, but on the income of the
business and is, therefore, without authority. The appellant D
has offered explanation for not raising the question of
legality in the earlier proceedings. It appears that the
authorities proceeded under a mistake of law as to the
nature of the claim. The appellant did not include the earlier
demand in the writ petition because the suit to enforce the E
agreement limiting the liability was pending in appeal, but
the appellant did attempt to raise the question in the appeal
itself. However, the Court declined to entertain the
additional ground as it was beyond the scope of the suit.
Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed explaining all F
the circumstances. The High Court considered the delay
as inordinate. In our view, the High Court failed to
appreciate all material facts particularly the fact that the
demand is illegal as already declared by it in the earlier
case. G
The rule which says that the Court may not enquire into
belated and stale claim is not a rule of law but a rule of
practice based on sound and proper exercise of
discretion. Each case must depend upon its own facts. It H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 11 S.C.R.
A will all depend on what the breach of the fundamental right
and the remedy claimed are and how delay arose. The
principle on which the relief to the party on the grounds of
!aches or delay is denied is that the rights which have
accrued to others by reason of the delay in filing the
B petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there
is a reasonable explanation for the delay. The real test to
determine delay in such cases is that the petitioner should
come to the writ court before a parallel right is created and
that the lapse of time is not attributable to any !aches or
c negligence. The test is not to physical running of time.
Where the circumstances justifying the conduct exists, the
illegality which is manifest cannot be sustained on the sole
ground of !aches. The decision in Tilokchand case relied
on is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. The
levy if based on the net profits of the railway undertaking
D
was beyond the authority and the illegal nature of the same
has been questioned though belatedly in the pending
proceedings after the pronouncement of the High Court in
the matter relating to the subsequent years. That being the
case, the claim of the appellant cannot be turned down on
E the sole ground of delay. We are of the opinion that the
High Court was wrong in dismissing the writ petition in
limine and refusing to grant the relief sought for."
(emphasis supplied)
F
19. In Ramchandra Shanker Deodhar v. State of
Maharashtra (1974) 1 SCC 317, the Court overruled the
objection of delay in filing of a petition involving challenge to
the seniority list of Mamlatdars and observed:
G " ....... Moreover, it may be noticed that the claim for
enforcement of the fundamental right of equal opportunity
under Art. 16 is itself a fundamental right guaranteed under
Art. 32 and this Court which has been assigned the role
of a sentinel on the qui vive for protection of the
H fundamental rights cannot easily allow itself to be
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 737
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
persuaded to refuse relief solely on the jejune ground of A
!aches, delay or the like."
20. In Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Limited v.
M. Prabhakar and others (2011) 5 SCC 607, this Court
considered the question whether the High Court should entertain
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution after long 8
delay and laid down the following principles:
"(1) There is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there
is a delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain
the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and C
proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt
with on its own facts.
(2) The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the
ground of !aches or delay is that the rights accrued to
0
others by the delay in filing the petition should not be
disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the
delay, because Court should not harm innocent parties if
their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the
petitioners.
E
(3) The satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an
application under Article 226 is for the petitioner to show
that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner
provided by law. If he runs after a remedy not provided in
the statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the F
High Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the
petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy.
(4) No hard-and-fast rule, can be laid down in this regard.
Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts.
G
(5) That representations would not be adequate
explanation to take care of the delay."
21. Another principle of law of which cognizance deserves
to be taken is that in exercise of power under Article 136 of H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 11 S.C.R.
A the Constitution, this Court would be extremely slow fo interfere
with the discretion exercised by the High Court to entertain a
belated petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Interference in such matters would be warranted only if it is
found that the exercise of discretion by the High Court was
8 totally arbitrary or was based on irrelevant consideration. In
Smt. Narayani Debi Khaitan v. State of Bihar [C.A. No.140 of
1964 decided on 22.9.1964), Chief Justice Gajendragadkar,
speaking for the Constitution Bench observed:
"It is well-settled that under Article 226, the power of the
c High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary.
There can be no doubt that if a citizen moves the High
Court under Article 226 and contends that his fundamental
rights have been contravened by any executive action, the
High Court would naturally like to give relief to him; but even
D in such a case, if the petitioner has been guilty of laches,
and there are other relevant circumstances which indicate
that it would be inappropriate for the High Court to exercise
its high prerogative jurisdiction ii. favour of the petitioner,
ends of justice may require that the High Court should
E refuse to issue a writ. There can be little doubt that if it is
shown that a party moving the High Court under Article 226
for a writ is, in substance, claiming a relief which under the
law of limitation was barred at the time when the writ
petition was filed, the High Court would refuse to grant any
F relief in its writ jurisdiction. No hard and fast rule can be
laid· down as to when the High Court should refuse to
exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it
after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of /aches.
That is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the
G High Court and like all matters left to the discretion of the
Court, in this matter too discretion must be exercised
judiciously and reasonably."
(emphasis supplied)
H 22. In the light of the above, it is to be seen whether the
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. · 739
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
discretion exercised by the Division Bench of the High Court A
to ignore the del'ay in filing of writ petition is vitiated by any
patent error or the reasons assigned for rejecting the
appellants' objection of delay are irrelevant and extraneous.
Though it may sound repetitive, we may mention that in the writ
petition filed by him, respondent No.1 had not only prayed for B
quashing of the acquisition proceedings, but also prayed for.
restoration of the acquired land on the ground that instead of
using the same for the public purpose specified in the
notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6, the Corporation
had transferred the same to private persons. Respondent No.1 c
and other landowners may not be having any serious objection
to the acquisition of their land for a public purpose and,
therefore, some of them not only accepted the compensation,
but also filed applications under Section 18 of the Act for
determination of market value by the Court. However, when it 0
was discovered that the acquired land has been transferred to
private persons, they sought intervention of the Court and in the
three cases, the Division Bench of the High Court nullified the
acquisition on the ground of fraud and misuse of the'provisions
of the Act.
E
23. Insofar as land of respondent No.1 is concerned, the
.same was advertised in 1987 along with other parcels of land
(total measuring 5 acres) and Corporation executed lease in
favour of M/s. Universal Resorts Limited in 1992. However, no
material has been placed on record to show that the said F
exercise was undertaken after issuing notice to the landowners.
When respondent No.1 discovered that his lane has been
transferred to private entity, he made grievance and finally
approached the High Court. During the intervening period, he
pursued his claim for higher compensation. Therefore, it cannot (
be said that he was sleeping over his right and was guilty of
laches.
24. A reading of the impugned judgment, the relevant
portions of which have been extracted hereinabove shows that t-
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A the Division Bench of the High Court adverted to all the facts,
which had bearing on the issue of delay including the one that
on the advice given by an advocate, respondent No.1 had ·
availed other remedies and opined that the delay had been
adequately explained. Thus, it cannot be said that the discretion
B exercised by the High Court to entertain and decide the writ
petition filed by respondent No.1 on merits is vitiated by any
patent legal infirmity. It is true that the writ petitions filed by the
brothers of respondent No.1 had been dismissed by the
learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and the writ
c appeals and the special leave petitions filed against the order
of the learned Single Judge were dismissed by the Division
Bench of the High Court and this Court respectively, but that
could not be made basis for denying relief to respondent No.1
because his brothers had neither questioned the diversification
D of land to private persons nor prayed for restoration of their
respective shares. That apart, we find it extremely difficult, if not
impossible, to approve the approach adopted by the learned
Single Judge in dealing with Writ P•1tition Nos. 2379 and 2380
of 1993 filed by the brothers of respondent No.1. He
E distinguished the judgments of the Division Bench in Mrs.
Behroze Ramyar Batha and others v. Special Land
Acquisition Officer (supra) and Smt. H.N. Lakshmamma and
others v. State of Karnataka and others, without any real
distinction and did not adhere to the basic postulate of judicial
discipline that a Single Bench is bound by the judgment of the
F Division Bench. Not only this, the learned Single Judge omitted
to consider order dated 3.10.1991 passed in Writ Petition Nos.
19812 to 19816 of 1990 - Annaiah and others v. State of
Karnataka and others in which the same Division Bench had
quashed notifications dated 28.12.1981and16.4.1983 in their
G entirety. Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court went
a step further and dismissed the writ appeals filed by the
brothers of respondent No. 1 without even adverting to the
factual matrix of the case, the grounds on which t~e order of
the learned Single Judge was challenged and ignored the law
H laid down by the coordinate Bench in three other cases. The
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 741
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] .
special leave petitions filed by the brothers of respondent No.1 A
were summarily dismissed by this Court. Such dismissal did
not amount to this Court's approval of the view taken by the High
Court on the legality of the acquisition and transfer of land to
private persons. In this connection, reference can usefully be
made to the judgment in Kunhayammed v. State of Kera/a B
(2000) 6 sec 359.
25. The next question which merits examinatic:m is whether
the High Court was justified in directing restoration of land to
respondent No.1. In Mrs. Behroze Ramyar Batha and others
v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra), the Division Bench C
of the High Court categorically held that the exercise
undertaken for the acquisition of land was vitiated due to fraud.
The Division Bench was also of the view that the acquisition
cannot be valid in part and invalid in other parts, but did not
nullify all the transfers on the premise that other writ petitions D
and a writ appeal involving challenge to the acquisition
proceedings were pending. In Annaiah and others v. State of
Karnataka and others (supra), the same Division Bench
specifically adverted to the issue of diversification of purpose
and held that where the landowners are deprived of their land E
under the cover of public purpose and there is diversification
of land for a private purpose, it amounts to fraudulent exercise
of the power of eminent domain.
26. The plea9ings and documents filed by the parties in F
these cases clearly show that the Corporation had made a false
projection to the State Government that land was needed for
execution of tourism related projects. In the meeting of officers
held on 13.1.1987, i.e. after almost four years of the issue of
declaration under Section 6, the Managing Director of the G
Corporation candidly admitted that the Corporation did not have
the requisite finances to pay for the acquisition of land and that
Da~ananda Pai, who had already entered into agreements with
some of the landowners for purchase of land, was prepared to
provide funds subject to certain conditions including transfer of H
12 acres 34 guntas land to him for house building project. After
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A 8 months, the Corporation passed resolution for transfer of over
12 acres land to Dayananda Pai. The Corporation also
transferred two other parcels of land in favour of Bangalore
International Centre and M/s. Universal Resorts Limited. These
transactions reveal the true design of the officers of the
s Corporation, who first succeeded in persuading the State
Government to acquire huge chunk of land for a public purpose
and then transferred major portion of the acquired land to p
ivate individual and corporate entities by citing. poor financ
al health of the Corporation as the cause for doing so. The Cou
c ts have repeatedly held that in exercise of its power of eminent
domain, the State can compulsorily acquire land of the private
persons but this proposition cannot be over-stretched to
legitimize a patently illegal and fraudulent exercise undertaken
for depriving the landowners of their constitutional right to
D property with a view to favour private persons. It needs no
emphasis that if land is to be acquired for a company, the State
Government and the company is bound to comply with the
mandate of the provisions contained in Part VII of the Act.
Therefore, the Corporation did not have the jurisdiction to
transfer the land acquired for a public purpose to. the
E companies and thereby allow them to bypass the provisions of
Part VII. The diversification of the.purpose for which land was
acquired under Section 4(1) read with Section 6 clearly
amounted to a fraud on the power of eminent domain. This is
precisely what the High Court has held in the judgment under
F appeal and we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the
same more so because in Annaiah and others v. State of
Kamataka and others (supra), the High Court had quashed the
notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 in their entirety
and that judgment has become final.
G
27. The judgment in Om Parkash v. Union of India (supra)
on which reliance has, been placed by Shri Naganand is clearly
distinguishable. What has been held in that case is that
quashing of the acquisition proceedings would enure to the
H benefit of only those who had approached the Court within
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND AN~. v. G. 743
JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
reasonable time and not to those who remained silent. In this A
case, respondent No.1 independently questioned the
acquisition.proceedings and transfer of the acquired land to M/
s. Universal Resorts Ltd. In other words, he approached the
High Court for-vindication of his right and succeeded in
convincing the Division Bench that the action taken by the B
Corporation to transfer his land to M/s. Universal Resorts
Limited was wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
28. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. Respondent
No.1 shall, if he has already not done so, ·fulfil his obligation in C
terms of the impugned judgment within a period of 8 weeks
from today. The appellant shall fulfil their obligation, i.e. return
of land to respondent No.1 within next 8 weeks.·
R.P. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search