2012 (2) TMI 712 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Land Acquisition
2. Compliance with Legal Procedures
3. Manipulations and Malpractices
4. Delay and Laches
5. Doctrine of Prospective Overruling

Summary:

1. Validity of Land Acquisition:
The central issue was whether the acquisition of land by the State Government for the benefit of the Appellant was for a "public purpose" as defined u/s 3(f)(vi) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the acquisition was not for a public purpose since the Appellant did not frame a housing scheme approved by the State Government before the notification u/s 4(1).

2. Compliance with Legal Procedures:
The Supreme Court noted that the Appellant failed to produce any evidence of a housing scheme approved by the State Government. The Court emphasized that compliance with Section 3(f)(vi) is a condition precedent for the acquisition of land for a cooperative society, which was not met in this case.

3. Manipulations and Malpractices:
The Court found that the acquisition process was influenced by extraneous considerations, including an agreement between the Appellant and an Estate Agent promising to secure the acquisition for a substantial fee. This was deemed a violation of Section 23 of the Contract Act, rendering the acquisition invalid.

4. Delay and Laches:
The Court rejected the Appellant's argument that the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 3 was delayed. It held that the delay was satisfactorily explained by Respondent No. 3, who was awaiting the State Government's decision on her representation for withdrawal of the acquisition.

5. Doctrine of Prospective Overruling:
The Appellant requested the application of the doctrine of prospective overruling to protect the interests of its members who had already built houses. The Court declined, stating that applying this doctrine would legitimize the influence of money over the rule of law, which is against the Constitution's edifice.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the Court directed the Appellant to return the vacant land to the Respondents within three months. The Appellant was given liberty to negotiate with the Respondents for purchasing the land at the prevailing market price to minimize the impact on those who had already built houses.