NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO 4681 OF 2008

(Arising out of SLP©No………………..CC 5931 of 2008)

Sri V. Prabhakar and Ors.        …Appellant

VERSUS

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Bangalore, Karnataka and Ors.      …Respondents

O R D E R

1. Delay condoned.   

2. Leave granted.

3. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the

Judgment  and  order  dated  19th of

September, 2007 of a Division Bench of

the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore

in Writ Appeal No. 6192 of 2002, whereby

the Division Bench of the High Court had

1

reversed the order of a learned Single

Judge  of  the  High  Court  quashing  the

acquisition proceeding in respect of the

land  belonging  to  the  appellants  and

rejected  the  writ  application  of  the

appellants.   

4. The  Bangalore  Mahanagara  Palike,

Bangalore, took a resolution to acquire

the property of the appellants bearing

No. 67/1 and 67/2 situated at 3rd Main

Road, Ramachandrapuram, Division No. 20,

Bangalore,  which  was  purchased  by  the

appellants by registered deeds of sale

on 5th of December, 1996, to establish a

school with a playground and a hospital.

The  purpose  for  which  the  land  was

acquired could not be disputed that such

purpose  was  for  a  public  purpose.  The

State  Government  thereafter,  after

approval  of  the  resolution  to  acquire

the  aforesaid  property,  issued  a

notification on 18th of June, 1998 under

2

Section  4  (1)  of  the  Land  Acquisition

Act  (in  short  the  “Act”).  Since  the

appellants  had  purchased  the  acquired

property,  they  challenged  the

notification under Section 4(1) of the

Act on the ground that the acquisition

was not bonafide. It was alleged by the

appellants  that  the  acquisition  was

malafide because the property was sought

to be acquired to start a school with a

playground and a hospital, which would

not  be  possible  to  establish  on  the

small piece of land measuring less than

half  an  acre  belonging  to  the

appellants.  Since  the  notification  was

not  withdrawn,  the  appellants  moved  a

writ  application  challenging  the

acquisition  on  the  ground  that

acquisition  was  not  bonafide.   The

learned single Judge of the High Court

held that the area acquired was little

less than half an acre and, therefore,

3

it was not possible to establish school

with a playground and a hospital in such

a small area.  Accordingly, the learned

Single Judge of the High Court held that

there could not exist a public purpose

for  acquiring  the  property  and,

therefore,  quashed  the  acquisition

proceedings.  An  appeal  was  carried  by

the  respondents  before  the  Division

Bench of the High Court which, by the

impugned order, had set aside the order

of the learned Single Judge holding that

the  land  so  acquired  was  acquired  for

public purpose for the establishment of

a  school  with  a  playground  and  a

hospital, and that if the area of the

acquired land which is half an acre is

not sufficient to satisfy all the three

requirements, namely-

(i) Establishment of a school;

(ii) A play ground;

(iii) A hospital,

4

at least one of such requirements could be

satisfied. Upon these findings, the Division

Bench of the High Court had set aside the

order of the learned Single Judge and held

that the notification under Section 4(1) of

the Act could not be quashed on the ground

of  malafides.  It  is  this  order  of  the

Division Bench of the High Court, the SLP

was filed in this Court, which on grant of

leave was heard in presence of the learned

counsel for the parties.     

5. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the

parties  and  considered  the  entire

materials  on  record  including  the

contrary findings of the learned Single

Judge as well as of the Division Bench

on the question of malafides to acquire

the  property  of  the  appellant.  It

appears from the record that there was

no material to substantiate the case of

malafides as made out by the appellants

in  the  writ  application.   It  also

5

appears from the record that the Deputy

Commissioner  (Administration)  of  the

State Government, by his letter dated 1st

of September, 1997, found the need for

acquisition of the acquired property for

the  purpose  of  establishing  a  school

with a play ground and a hospital for

which  necessary  amounts  have  already

been deposited.  The Division Bench of

the  High  Court,  in  our  view,  rightly

pointed  out  that  if  the  area  acquired

was  not  sufficient  to  satisfy  all  the

three  requirements,  then  also,  the

acquired land could be used for one of

the suitable purpose namely a school or

a playground or a hospital.  

6. That  apart,  we  also  find  that  a  writ

application was filed by the appellants

before  the  High  Court  earlier

challenging a resolution to acquire the

properties  of  the  appellants  for  the

aforesaid public purpose. The High Court

6

rejected the writ application and held

that there was no ground to hold that

the  acquired  properties  could  not  be

utilized for the purpose of establishing

a  school  with  a  playground  and  a

hospital. Unfortunately, it appears that

the appellants had suppressed the fact

of  rejection  of  this  earlier  writ

petition  in  the  subsequent  writ

application challenging the notification

under Section 4(1) of the Act.

7. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no

merit  in  this  appeal  and  the  appeal

stands dismissed without any order as to

costs.

……………………………………………J.  [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

New Delhi.  ………………………………………….J. July 28, 2008.   [AFTAB ALAM]   

7