Holding

Prior approval of the appropriate government under Section 3(f)(vi) is a condition precedent, and its absence renders the acquisition invalid.

Summary

The H.M.T. House Building Co‑operative Society, a housing society for HMT employees, submitted a scheme to the Karnataka Government and entered into an agreement with a construction firm (respondent No.11) to secure acquisition of land for its members. The State issued notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, but the High Court quashed them, holding that the acquisition was not for a genuine public purpose and was driven by payments to the middle‑man. The Society appealed, contending that an order dated 7‑Nov‑1984 constituted prior approval under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that prior approval is a condition precedent, not a mere formality, and that the order was merely consent under Section 39, not the required prior approval. Consequently, the acquisition was invalid, the High Court’s judgment was affirmed, and possession of the lands was to be restored to the original owners. The Court also directed refund of any compensation received by the landowners.

Issues considered

The requirement and nature of prior approval under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Land Acquisition Act for housing co‑operative societies.
Whether the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) were valid in the absence of such prior approval.
Whether the acquisition constituted a colourable exercise of power and a genuine public purpose.
Whether the agreement with the middle‑man (respondent No.11) taints the acquisition process.

Legislation cited

Bangalore Development Authority Act
Companies Act, 1956s. 617
Karnataka Co‑operative Societies Acts. 64
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 39, s. 3(cc), s. 3(e), s. 3(f)(vi), s. 40, s. 4(1), s. 44-A, s. 6(1)
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984

Subjects

Land acquisitionPublic purposeCo‑operative societyPrior approvalColourable exercise of powerSection 3(f)(vi)Section 39Section 40KarnatakaHousing scheme

Judgment

r

A H.M.T. HOUSE BUILIDNG CO-OP. SOCIETY
v.
SYED KHADER AND ORS. )-

FEBRUARY 21, 1995

B [J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.)

LandAcquisitionAct, 1894-Ss.3(cc), 3(e), 3(f)(vi), 39, 40Acquisition
for a deemed company-Appropriate government-Prior approval and not
previous consent-A condition precedent not just a formality-Provisions must
C be strictly construed.
The appellant, a Co-operative society, registered under the Kar-
nataka Co-operative Societies Act, submitted a housing scheme to the
State Government for acquisition of certain lands in Bangalore. The
society also entered into an agreement with a construction company
D (respondent no. 11), which, for a consideration, a.ssured acquisiton of the
land by the appropriate government. Respondent no. 11 had also entered · ·
into agreements with landowners who agreed to give their consent for '
acquisition. ,
r I / . .

E Appellant s~iJty, a deemed company under the Land Acquisition
Act, submitted its housing scheme to the appropriate government which
. was allegedly approved by an order dated 7.11.1984. The society then
entered into an agreement with the appropriate government agreeing to
the conditions of acquisiton as required under Part VII of the Act. The
State government then issued a notification under section 4(1) proposing
F to acquire lands for the society on the grounds of public purpose.
The said notification was challenged in the High Court by land-
owners and other persons affected thereby inter alia stating that the
acquisition itself was not for a public purpose as respondent no. 11, had
G influenced the exercise of statutory power by the approprite government ~.
for the substantial amount paid by the society as consideration for exercise
of the same, and that it cannot be held that the appropriate Government
had exercised its own independent discretion and that the exercise of power
is not based on an objective consideration of the material on record.

H During the pendency of the writ petition, a declaration under Section
. 200
H.MT. HOUSE BLDG. C-OP. SOCY. v. SYED .KHADER 201

6(1) was issued by the State government pursuant to the earlier notifica· A
tion under challenge. Awards were made for that part of the land covered
by the declaration.

In the meanwhile, the Registerar of Cooperative Societies, Kar-
nataka directed a statutory inquiry and a report relating to several
societies including the Appellant Society -was submitted pointing out B
several irregularities committed by the Appellant in the matter of admis-
sion of members and also that the Appellant had entered into an agree-
ment with an agent, respondent no. 11, and had paid him Rs. 92,52,938
and Rs. 35 Lakhs to the Special Land Acquisition officer.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the entire ac-
c
quisiton and inter alia, held (a) The acquisition was not for a public
r
purpose and not for the benefit of bonafide members of the society; (b) On
/ the basis of the enquiry report, many of the societies manipulated mem-
bership so as to enroll all those who are desirous of purchasing sites as
. -also those who do not possess the territorial or other qualification as D
membns; (c) that the society had indulged in commercial venture for sale
of the sites; hence the acquisition of the lands under the provisions of the
Act of 1984 was a colourable exercise of power and suffers from legal
malafides and; (d) that it defeats the provisions of the Bangalore Develop·
ment Authority Act. E
The High Court observed that it was necessary that the government
should frame rules for according previous approval for acquisiton of lands
for housing co-operative societies inter alia prescribing the procedure for
inquiry and report to aid the government in deciding whether or not
approval should be given for carrying out such schemes. F
In this appeal, the Society contended that as the notifications under
Sections 4(1) and 6(1) were issued beyond the time stipulated in the
agreement it should be held that the State government had exercised its
statutory power for acquisition in normal course only after taking all facts G
and circumstances into consideration and that merely because the society _
had entered into an agreement with respondent no. 11, who for a con-
-{ sideration assured that the land would be acquired by the government, no
adverse inference could be drawn.

Dismissing the appeal, this court H
f

202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 2 S.C.R.

A HELD : 1. The prior approval of the appropriate government as
required under section 3(f)(vi) of the Land Acquisition Act is not just a
formality; it is a condition precedent to the ~xercise of the power of
acquisition by the appropriate government for a housing scheme of a
cooperative society. in the present case there has been contravention of
B Section 3· (f)(vi) of the Act in as much as there was no prior approval of
the State government as required by the said section before steps for
acquisition of the lands were taken. [215-G, 217-E]

2. The allegation made on behalf of the appellant society that the
housing scheme had been approved by the appropriate government on
C 7.11.1984 shall not be deemed to be a prior approval within the meaning
of Section 3(f)(vi) but an order giving previous consent as required by
Section 39 of Part-VII of the Act. [216·B]

3. In any acquisition by the appropriate government for any housing
D society there has to be a prior approval of such scheme by the appropriate
Government. When the lands are acquired for any co-operative society with
prior approval of the scheme by the State Government, there is no question
of application of the provisions of Part VII of the Act. Such acquisition
shall be on the mode of acquisition by the appropriate government for any
E public purpose. [213·F]

4. The finding of the High Court that the statutory notlftcations
issued u~der Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act have been issued due to the
role of Respondndent no. 11 is right. On the materials on record, the High
F Court was justlfted in coming to the conclusion that the proceedings for
acquisition of the lands had not been initiated because the State govern·
ment was satisfied about the existence of the public purpose but at the
instance of the agent who had collected more than a crore of rupees for
getting the land acquired by the State Government. (217-G-HJ

G 5. As a result of quashing of the land acquisition proceedings includ·
Ing the notifications as aforesaid, possession of the lands shall be restored
· to the respective landowners irrespective of the fact whether they bad
challenged the acquisition or .not. On restoration of the possession to the
land owners they shall refund the amounts received by them 1'S -compen•
H sation or otherwise in respect of their lands. [218·B] ...
H.M.T.HOUSEBLDG.C-OP.SOCY.v.SYEDKHADER(N.P.SINGH,J.] 203

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3011-19 A '
of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.6.91 of the Karnataka High
Court in W.P. Nos. 13357-65 of 1988.

Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, G. Ramaswamy, N. B
Narashima Murthy, H.N. Salve, A.N. Jayaram, K.K. Venugopal, M.R.
Janardliana and K.N. Bhat, S.K. Kulkarni, Surya Kant, S. Sivaswamy, P.K.
Pillai, Dileep Pillai, R.S. Hedge, S.K. Agnihotri, T.V.S.N. Chari, G. Kasturi,
K.S. Ramesh, G.R. Mohan, Pravir Chaudhary, M. Rajagopal, M. Veerappa,
Lalita, K.H. Nobin Singh,· S. Ganesh, M.S. Siddharaju, Kaushik, M.N. C
Shroff, R.P. Wadhwani, D.Singh, Ms. Kiran Suri, K. V. Mohan, N.D.R.
Ramachandra Rao, T. Ray, Naresh Kaus, Vineet Kumar, Raju
Ramachandran, S.N. Bhat, Josheph Pookkati, S.R. Bhat and K. Ramkumar
/ for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
N.P. SINGH, J. Leave granted

The appellant is a House Building Co-operative Society of the
employees of H.M.T. Umited, a Government Company (hereinafter E
referred to as the 'Society'). The soci~ty was registered for the purpose of
acquiring land by purchase, mortgage, lease, exchange, gift or otherwise,
and to develop the same by construction of roads, drains, parks, play
grounds, schools, hospitals, waterworks, post-office and other amenities,
required for a residential housing colony. The Society has been registered
under the provisions of Kamataka Co-operative Societies Act. F
The Society submitted its housing scheme to the State Government
on 19.9.1984, for the purpose of acquisition of lands situated at Thindlu
and Chikkabettahalli, for 1001 members of the Society. It is the case of the
appellant that the Government being fqlly satisfied with the scheme sub·
mitted by the appellant, approved the same by an order dated 7.11.1984 G
and accorded approval for initiation of acquisition proceeding for the
lands. On 17.3.1988 the Society entered into an agreement with the State
Government agreeing to the conditions for acquisition, as required by
Sections 39 and 40 of Part·VII of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter ·
referred to as the 'Act'). But on 12.7.1988 a notification under Section 4(1) H
I

204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 2 S.C.R.

A '"of the Act was issued proposing to acquire lands for the Society to the
extent of 133.33 acres in the aforesaid two villages, saying it was needed
for public purpose.

The writ petitioners-respondents questioned the validity of the
aforesaid notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on several grounds
B including that the acquisition itself was not for public purpose. During the
pendency~ the writ application on 11.8.1989 the State Government issued
declaration.under Section 6(1) of the Act in respect of 99.01 acres of land
in the aforesaid two .villages for the appellant's society. On 19.3.1991
awards were made in respect of ·the afor~said lands. However, on 18.6.1991
C the High Court· allowed the writ application and quashed all steps taken
ui COJ#t:ection with acquisition thereof. According to the High_ C9_urt, the
· acquisf@n was not for allotment to the bonafide members of the Society
and as tti~:·S,ociety had indulged in commercial venture for sales of sites,
the acquiSition of the lands under the provision of the Act was a colourable
iexercise of the power. ThC High Court was also of the opinion .that
D prQ(:edure adopted by the State Government for acquisition of lands for
the Society was likely lo defeat the schemes under Bangalore Development
Authority Act.

From the facts of the present case, it appears that on 19.9.1984 the
E appellant society submitted the housing scheme to the State Government.
On 1;2.1985 the appellant society entered into an agreement with M/s~S.R.
Constructions, respondent No. 11 in which the appellant society was
described as first party and M/s. S.R. Constructions as Second party. The
relevant parts whereof are as follows :-

F "2. WHEREAS THE FIRST PARTY is a registered House
Building Co-operative Society under the Karnataka Co-operative
. Societies Act, its main object being to procure lands around
Bangalore and fonning layouts and sites to cater to the needs of
its members by alloting sites for purposes of construction of dwell-
ing houses on the sites and the ·Second Party is an Architects,
Engineers, Builders and Layout Contractors.

3. AND WHEREAS THE SECOND PARTY approached the
F'll'st Party and offered to assist the F'1rst Party to secure lands in
Thindlu and· drikbNttahaJly villages to the extent of 80 Acres
H ~at specified in the annexures tO this Agreement and
H.M.T.HOUSEBLDG.C-OP.SOCY.v. SYEDKHADER[N.P.SINGH,J.) 205
)
to get the lands acquired in favour: of the First Party and further A
.' offered to take up the work of layout and formation of>:\sites so
'
formed through the B.D.A., and/or from any other competent
authority.

4. AND WHEREAS at on a representation from the FIRST
PARTY the SECOND PAR1Ywith his efforts has secured direc- B
tions from Revenue Secretary, Government of Kamataka addressed
to the Special D.C., Bangalore to issue Notification under Sec. 4(1)
of Land Acquisition Act in favour of the First Party Society vide
No. RD.257 AQB 84 dated 7.11.1984.

The Second party shall secure to the First Party lands at Thindlu
c
and Chikkabettahally to an extent of 80 acres as specified in the
/ annexures to this agreement to begin with and such further extend
as the First Party may require and shall arrange for agreements to
be executed between the owners of such lands and the First Party
within a period of 2-3 months from this day to facilitate the D
acquisition of lands in favour of the first Party. The Second Party
hereby agrees strictly to conform and act according to the terms
of this agreement.

The Second ~arty who has already entered into sale agreement
with the owners of land (the details of the land fully described in E
the schedule to this agreement) has agreed to negotiate and ensure
the acquisition of the land in favour of First Party.

The First Party after inspection of the lands and discussions
with the Second Party has agreed to have the lands from the owners
F
acquired for the First Party subject to the other Services to be
rendered by the Second Party as agreed to hereinafter.

NOW THIS AGREEMENT spells out the terms and condi-
/, tions, rights, powers, obligations and liabilities of the parties to this
agreement. G
1 1. It is agreed that the Second Party shall carry out the following
works for the First Party in respect of the lands to be acquired for
the First Party.

2. It is agreed that in respect of the lands to be acquired for H
r

206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 2 S.C.R.

A the Fi;st Party ihe Second Party shall undetake to do the following:

(a) To get Notification 11/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued
)
for acquisition of the required "extent of land mentioned in the
annemre for the First Party in Thindlu and Chikkabettahally
Villages, in one continuous plot and enter into necessary
B • agreements with the owners of the land confirming that the
lands are free from encumbrance and that there are no cl<.ims
on the lands and that they have no objection for the acquisi·
tion proceedings in respect of the land;

c (b) To get the Notification as required under Section 4(1) to be
issued, within 3 months from the date of agreement with land
owners;

"(c) To get the Enquiry as required under Section 5(1} of the
Land Acquisition Act by proper authorities completed within
D 3-4 months from the date of agreement with land owners :

(d) To get the Notification ,as required u/s 6(1) of the Land Ac·
quisition Act within io months from the date of the Agree·
ment;
E.
(e) To secure possession of the land from the land owners to the
Fust Party after all the formalities of acquisition are com·
plctcd and orders passed acquiring the lands for the lint
Party within U months from the date of the agreement;

F (I) To get the layout plan approved and sanctioned and also
· permission to execute the civil 'portion of the layout work
comprising of formation of roads, drains, culverts etc., by the
B.DA. within 2 months from the date of securing possession
of lands; -.~

G (g) Executing the civil portion of the layout work comprising of
formation of roads, drain, culverts etc., as· specified by the
B.DA. according to the sanctioned plan, specifications and
· under supeivision of the B.DA. within 8 months of the
. sanction of layout plan and receipt of work order from the
H B.DA. for the layout work;
-~
'

. .
H.M.T.HOUSE BLDG. C-OP.SOCY. v. SYED KHADER [N.P.SINGH,J.) 207

(h) Securing the permission from B.D.A. to e~ecute the layout A
work under their supervision and the layout comprising of ·
laying of water supplying, sewerage lines and chip carpeting
which is agreed to be completed within 6 months after the ·
completion of civil portion layout;

(i) Executing and doing all other acts, and things necessary for · B
forming full fledged layout of residential building sites on the
lands required complete in all respects, fit and ready for ·
construction of houses on the completion of civil portion of.
lay out works;

G) To get all the sites rele.ased from the B.DA. or any other
c
competent authority within 2 months of completion of layout
works ..

3. The Second Party has agreed and undertaken to take up the
above mentioned works and has agreed to earry
out the works D '
within 245 months time from the date of this agreement subject to .
any delay caused at the B.DA. and other authorities in procuring
the Ian:!, sanctioning or issiiliig layout plan and work order.

4. The first Party agrees to pay to the Second Party an amount
calculated at Rs. 112 per Sq. Yard based on the actual sital area E
(inclusive of the cost of the land acquired and the compensation
payable thereto either under the award or any enhanced compen-
sation under any proceedings, security fee and amounts payable to
the B.DA. towards supervision charges, chip carpeting, tree plant-
ing, maintenance etc., amount and sewerage mains withlll the · F 7
layout amount payable to K.E.B. for electricity and the cost of ·
. layout to be deposited with B.DA.) excluding the cost of the area
to be left for roads, drains and the civic amenities according to the
layout plan approved by BDA.
Ar-··- .
·····-······'··;············:················· (Emphasis supplied) G
In the schedule of the said agreement, the details of the lands, which
have been acquired and which are subject matter of controversy, have been
given.

·It further appears that agreements were also executed in favour of H

'
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 2 S.C.R.

A the appellant society by the land holders, some of whom are writ petitioners
- respondents, agreeing to sell their lands to the appellant society or the
their nominee. In such agreements, the land holders said that the terms
and conditions of the agreement entered into between Mis S.R. Construc-
tions and the appellant society were totally agreeable to them including the
· terms of payment and time limit. They also agreed to· receive the sale
B consideration through M/s S.R. Constructions (respondent No. 11) and ·
admitted to have received advance on behalf of the appellant society from
M/s S.R. Constructions. They further agreed that if the ·Government in-
tended to acquire the land for the housing purpose of the appellant society,
they will agree to give consent to notifications under Sections 4(i) ·ru,d 6(1}
C of the Act.
Before the High Court, on behalf of the Writ petitioners, it was ~
pointed out that respondent No. 11, M/s S.R. Constructions had played
dubious role of a middle man. The said respondent entered into agreement
with the land holders for sale of their lands by negotiation. At the same
D time it entered into an agreement With the appellant society to get notifica- · '
lions ·under Sections 4(1} and 6(1} issued by the appropriate Government
acquiring those lands through the procedure prescribed under the Act. In
this process, the said respondent No. 11 has influenced the exercise of
statutory power by the appropriate Government, for the huge amount paid
E by the appellant society to the said respondent as consideration for the
same. In this background, according to the writ petitioners, it cannot be
held that the appropriate Government has exercised its own independent
discretion, that the lands in question were needed for any public puqiose.
in other words, the exercise of the statutory power under Sections 4(1} and
F 6(1} of the Act is not based on objective considerations of the materials,
on the basis of which the appropriate Government could have formed an
opinion that the lands of the .writ petitioners we~e required for public
purpose and because of that it was necessary to acquire the same.

The High Court came to the conclusion, on this question :
G
"The agents of ea~h/ of these societies had been paid heavy
amounts in consideration of which they were required to influence ..
the Government and to get the preliminary and the final notifica- .
tions acqiliring large extent of IandS, from the Government The
H .decision of the Government to acquire the land was brought aboUt

--
\
H.M.T.HOUSEBWG.C.OP.SOCY.v. SYEDKHADER[N.P.SINGH,J.). 209 ..

by the influence of such agents appointed to be 'go betwcens'and A
"carryers" between the GovernmCnt ·and the soCiety concerned and
therefore such a decision is liable to. be set aside on the ground
that it is a case of colourable exercise of power and suffers from
· legal ma/a fides, in that, thougb the_ acquisition is stated to be for
public purpose, in reality, the acquisition is substantially not for B
the purpose of bona fide housing schemes. ·

From the judgment of the High Court, it further appears that not
only the acquisition of lands in favour of seven Housing Co-operative
Societies, who were respondents to the different Writ Petitions, but also
the acquisition of lands in favour of more than one hundred housing c
societies, which had sprung up within the Bang:.iore Metropolitan Planning
Area became the matter of public debate and criticism. As a result of which.·
a statutory enquiry under Section 64 of tlie Karnataki. Co~operative
Societies Act was directed by the Reiistrar of Co-operatiYe Societies. The
enquiry was held by Shri G.V.K.. Rao, the Controller of Weights and - D
Measures, who submitted his Report in respect of different housing
societies including the appellant Society. The said Report was produced
before the Higb Court. In the Report, it has been pointed out that most
predominant irregularities committed by many of the Societies was in
respect of admission of members. In many cases, the committees of E,
management did not consider the applications for membership and there
was no proper resolutions specifying the persons who were admitted as
members of the society. There was no record on which date the· said
members were admitted by the different Housing Co-operative Societies.
It was also said in the Report that the societies admitted persons, who were F ..
j not eligible to become members. In respect of the appellant society, it was.
said in the Report, which has been referred to by the High Court in its .
judgment that membership was .open to any person above 18 years of age
and it left scope for admitting non-employees of HMT as members. From
the scrutiny of the applications, it transpired that many who had been
admitted as members, were neither employees of the HMT nor residents G
within the jurisdiction of the. Society. It was also pointed ·out that the
appellant had entered into an agreement with the Estate Agent S.R.
Constructions and had paid a total amount of Rs. 92,52,938 to the said
agent and Rs. 35 lalchs to special Land Acquisition Officer. The conclusion
in respect of the appellant society in the Report is as follows :- ·H
A
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

"The Society has admitted large -number of persons who are
neither employees of HMT nor residents of the jurisdiction of the
'
Society. All of them are to be removed from the rolls of the Society.
The society grants the membership without collecting the suffi-
cient share amount and in many cases only the single share was
taken by the members, whereas it was necessary for members to
B take atleast five shares. The committee solely responsible for these
irregularities. Secondly, the Society made huge advances to the
agents without commensurate amount of guarantee or security and
without any work being done by the agents. There is atleast Rs.
1.6 crores which has been advanced.to the agents without any work.
c The committee in general and the Hon. Secretary of the Society
~particular is responsible for these irregularities".
·; :-,'~ ..

Taking info <::onsideration all th.: facts and the circumstances of the case
including the :report of Mr. G.V.K. Rao, the High Court observed :

·n "Before concluding, it is necessary to observe that as pointed
out in- the report of G.V.K. Rao, it is on account of unlimited
territorial jurisdiction and vague .provisions as to who could be-
come members and associate members and also as to what are the
rights of associate members, it has been possible for many of the
societies to manipulate membership in such a way as to enroll all
E
those who are desirous of purchasing sites as also those who do
not possess the territorial or other qualification as members".

It was said that it was necessary that the Government should frame rules
for according previous approval for acquisition of lands for the housing
F co-operative societies inter alia prescribing the essential requirements of a 1

housing scheme and also prescribing the procedure for inquiry and report \..._
to aid the Government to come to the conclusion as to whether the
previous approval should be given for any scheme prepared by any of the
house building societies which requires the Government to acquire any
G land for carrying out any such scheme.
By Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984)
several amendments have been introduced in the said Act including in the
definition "corporation owned or controlled by the State", "Company" and ,)-4
"public purpose". The aforesaid amendments came into force with effect
H from 24.9.1984. Section 3(cc) defines the expression "corporation owned or
'
H.M.T. HOUSE BLDG, C-OP. SOCY. v. SYED KHADER [N.P. SINGH,J.) 211

controlled by the State" : A
• "3(cc) - the expression "corporation owned or controlled by the
State" means any body corporate established by or under a Central,
Proviricial or State Act,,and includes a Government company as
defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, a society
registered under the Societies Act, 1860, or under any correspond- B
ing law for the time being in force in a State, being a society
established or administered by Government and a co-operative
society within the meaning of any law relating to co-operative
societies for the time being in force in any State, being a co-opera-
tive society in which not less than fifty- one per centum of the C
paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government, or by any
State Government or Governments, or partly by the Central
Government and partly by one or more State Government."
/
The expression 'Company' has been defined in Section 3(e) of the
Act. D

"3(e) - the expression "Company means -

(i) a Company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act,
1956, other than a Government company referred to in dause
(cc); ~
(ii) a society registered under the Societies Registration Act,
~860, or under any corresponding law for the time being in
force in a State, other than a society referred to in clause
(aj; F
(iii) a co-operative society within the meaning of any law relating
to co-operative societies for the time being in force in any
State, other than a co-operative society referred to in clause
(cc)."
G
The expression "public purpose" has been defined in Section 3(t) of
the Act.

~. "3(t) - the expression "public purpose"includes -

(i) the provision of village-sites, or the extension, planned H
/
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A development or improvement of existing village-sites;

(ii) the provision of land for town or rural planning;

(iii) the provision· of land for planned development of land from
public funds in pursuance of any scheme or policy of Govern-
B ment and subsequent disposal thereof in ~hole or in part by
lease, assignment or outright sale with the object of securing
further development as planned;

c
(iv) the provision of land for a corporation owned or controlled
by the State;

(v) the provision of land for residential purposes to the poor or
-
r"
landless or to persons residing in areas affected by natural
calamities, or to persons displaced or affected by reason of
the imple,mentation of any scheme undertaken by govern-
D ment, any local authority or a corporation owned or control-
led by the State;

(vi) the provision of land for carrying out any educational, hous-
ing, health or slum clearance scheme sponsored by Govern-
ment or by any authority established by Government for
E carrying out any such scheme, or with the prior approval of
the appropriate Government, by a local authority, or a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or
. under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a
State, or a co-operative society within the meaning of any law
relating to co-operative societies for the time being in force
F in any State;

(vii) the provision of land for any other scheme of devlopment
sponsored by Government, or, with the prior approval of the
appropriate Government, by a local authority;
G
(viii) the provision of any premises or building for locating a public
office,

but does not include acquisition of land for Companies."

H There is no dispute that the Society with which we are concerned
·~, i. ,-.....: '.,, ''

\ -

IDLT.HOUSEBIDG.COP.SOCY.v. SYEDKHADER[N.P.SINGH,J.) 213

shall not be covered by the expression 'co~poration o:.vned or controlled A
by the State', because the said expression shall include. a co-operative
society, being a co-operative society in which rict less than 51 per centum
of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government, or by any
State Government or Governments; or partly by the.Central Government
and partly by one or more State Governments.
B
The substituted definiti~n of the e."tpression 'Cci;,,pany' in Sectlon
3(a) (iii) will certainly include the appellant society. The substituted defini-
tion of the expression 'Company'. shall irlclude co-operative society, within
the menaing of any law relating to co-operative societies other than those
referred to in clause (cc) of Section 3 of the-Act. Such co-'.operative society C
shall be deemed to be a company, to which ·proVisiom of Chapter VII
relating to acquisition of land for company shall be applicable. ,

In 'ieiv of the substituted definition of the expression- 'public pur-
pose', in Seeton 3(f)(vi), the proVision for carrying out any housing scheme . D
sponsored by the Government or by any authority established by Govern-
ment for carrying out any such· scheme shall be deemed to be a "public
-purpose". It further says that the provision of land for carrying out any
housing scheme with prior approval of the State Government by a co-
operative society within the meaning of any law relating to co-operative
societies for the time bemg in force in any State, shall be deemed to be a E .
'public purpose'. As such for any housing co-operative soclety lands can
·be acquired by the appropriate Gvoernment, treating the same as acquisi-
tion for the public purpose. But, in thafevent, there has to be a prior
approval of such scheme by the appropriate Government. When the lands
arc acquired for any co-operative society With prior approval of the scheme F
by the State Government, there is no question of application· of the
prO\isions of Part - VII of the Act. Such acquisition shall be on the mode
of ac,quisition by the appropriate Government for any public purpose;

If lands are acquired for any 'co-operative society treating it to be' a
company \\ithin the meaning of Section 3(e), then in view of Section 39 of G
the Act the provisions of Sections 6 to 16 and Sections 18 to 37 shall not
be put in force unless there iS prcviou.5 consent of the approf,riate Govern-
ment, and the Co-operative society has eiecuted an agreement The consent
required 'under Section 39 of the Act has to be given by the appropriate
Government only after the conditions mentioned in Section 40.are fulfilled. H
I

214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A Sub-section (1) of Section 40, of the Act prescribes the conditions :
"40. Previous enquiry. -

(1) Such consent shall not be given unless the appropriate Govern-
ment be satisfied, either on the report of the Collector u~dctr
B Section 5-A, sub-section (2), or by an enquiry held as hereinafter
provided, -

(a) that the purpo~e of the acquisition is to obtain land for the
·erection of d-.yelling houses for workmen employed by the
Company or for the provision of amenities directly connected
c therewith, or ·

(aa) that such acquisition is needed for the construction of some
building or work for a Company which is engaged or is taking
steps for engaging itself in any industry or work which is for
D a public purpose, or '

(b) that such acquisition is needed for the construction of some
work, and that such work is likely to prove useful to the
public."

·E In view of sub-section (1) of Section 40, before giving a consent, the
appropriate .G~vernment has to be satisfied that the purpose of acquisition
is for any of the pu.ryoses mentioned in clauses (a), (aa) and (b) of the said
Section. Clause (a) clearly links the object of acquisition for the erection
of dwelling houses for workmen employed by the Company or to provide
F amenities directly connected therewith. Clause (aa) requires that such
acquisition is needed for the construction of some building or work for a
Company which is engaged itself in any industry or work which is for a
public purpose. Similarly, clause (b) also requires that acquisition should
be for the construction of some work, which is likely to prove useful to the
G public. Section 44-1 of the Act, is relevant :

"44-A. Restriction on transfer, etc. - No Company for which
any land is acquired under this Part shall be entitled to transfer
the said land or any part thereof by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or
otherwise except with the previous sanction of the appropriate
H Government."
H.M.T. HOUSE BLDG. C-OP. SOCY. v. SYED KHADER [N.P. SINGH,J.] .215

In view of Section 44-A, no company/co-operative society for which A
~ the land has been acquired under the said Part - VII shall be entitled to
transfer the said land or any part thereof by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or
otherwise except with the previous sanction of the appropriate Govern-
ment. It need not be pointed out that the framers of the Act have put
several conditions and restrict\ons in respect of acquisition of land for a
company/co-operative society if the lands are acquired under Part - VII of
B
the Act.

Now the question which is to be answered is as to whethe~ in view
of the definition of "public purpose" introducted by the aforesaid amending
Act 68 of 1984 in Section 3(t)(vi), is it open to the appropriate Government c
to acquire land for co-operative society for housing scheme without making
"A
proper enquiry about the members of the Society and without putting such
housing co-operative society to term in respect of nature of construction,
the area to be alloted to the members and restrictions on transfer thereof?
D
According to us, in Section 3(t)vi) the expression "housing" has been
.~ used along with educational and health schemes. As such the housing
scheme contemplated by Section 3(f)(vi) shall. be such housing scheme
which shall serve the maximum number of members of the society. Such
housing scheme should prove to be useful to. the public. That is why .the
Parliament while introducing a new definition of "public purpose", said that E
any scheme submitted by any co-operative society relating to.housing, must
receive prior approval of the appropriate Government and then only the
acquisition of the land for such scheme can be held to be for public
..) purpose. If requirement of Section 3(t)(vi) is not strictly enforced, every
housing co-operative society shall approach the appropriate Government F
for acquisition by applying Section 3(t)(vi) instead of pursuing the acquisi-
tion under Part VII of the Act which has become more rigorous and

--
restrictive. In this background, it has to be held that the prior approval,
required by Section 3(t)(vi), of the appropriate Government is not just a
formality; it is a condition precedent to the exercise of the power of
acquisition by the appropriate Government for a housing scheme of a G
"'(_ co-operative society.

In the present case, a hybrid procedure appears to have been fol-
lowed. Initially, the appellant society through M/s. S.R. Constructions
purported to acquire the lands by negotiation and sale .by the land holders. H
'

216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A Then from terms of the agreement dated 17.3.1988, it appears that the
procedure prescribed in Part - VII was to be followed and the lands were
to be acquired at the cost of the appellant society treating it to be a
"company". The allegation made on behalf of the appellant society that the
housing scheme had been approved by the appropriate Government on
7.11.1984 shall not be deemed to be a prior approval within the meaning
B of Section 3(t)(vi) but an order giving previous consent as required by ·
Section 39 of Part - VII of the Act. In the agreement dated 17.3.1988 it has
been specifically stated "And whereas the Government having caused
inquiry to be made in conformity with the provisions of the said Act and
being satisfied as a result of such inquiry that the acqwsition of the said
C land is needed for the purpose referred to above has consented to the.
provisions of the said Act being in force in order to acquire the said land for
the benefit of the society members to enter in the agreement hereinafter
contained with the Government". [emphasis supplied] But, ultimately, the
lands have been acquired on behalf of the appropriate Government treat-
D ing the requirement of the appellant society as for a public purpose withit:i
the meaning of Section 3(f)(vi). It is surprising as to how respondent M/s
S.R. Constructions entered into agreement with the appellant society as-
suring it that the lands, details of which were given in the agreement itself,
shall be acquired by the State Government by following the procedure of
Sections 4(1) and 6(1) and for this, more than on~ ctore of rupees was paid
E to Mis S.R. Constructions (respondent No. 11).

Mr. G. Ramaswami, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant, submitted that merely because the appellant society had
entered into an agreement with respo~ent No.11. M/s S.R. Constructions
F in which the latter for the consideratio~paid to it had assured that the
lands in question shall be acquired by the State Government, no adverse
inference should be drawn because that may amount t.o a tall claim made
on behalf of Mis S.R. Constructions in the agreement. He pointed out that
the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) have been issued beyond the
time stipulated in the agreement and as such, it sh~uld 'be held that the
G State Government has exercised its statutory.power for acquisition of the
lands in normal course, only after taking all facts and circumstances ~to
consideration. There is no dispute that in terms of agreement dated ·
1.2.1985 payments have been made by the appellant society to Mis S.R.
Constructions. This circumstance alone goes a long way to support the
H contention of the writ petitioners that their lands have .not been acquired
H.M.T.HOUSEBLDG.C-OP.SOCY.v. SYEDKHADER[N.P.SINGH,J.] 217

in normal course or for any public purpose. In spite of the repeated query, A
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant society could not point out
or produce any order of the State Government under Section 3(f)(vi) of
the Act granting prior approval and prescribing conditions and restrictions
in respect of the use of the lands which are to be acquired for a public
purpose. There is no restriction or bar on the part of the appellant society B
on carving out the size of the plots or the manner of allotment or in respect
of construction over the same. That is why the framers of the Act have
required the appropriate Government to grant prior approval of any
housing scheme presented by any co-operative society before the lands are
acquired treating such requirement and acquisition for public purpose. It
is incumbent on part of the appropriate government while granting ap- C
proval to examine different aspects of the matter so that it may serve the
/ public interest and not the interest of few who can as well afford to acquire
such lands by negotiation in open market. According to us, the State
Government has not granted the prior approval in terms of Section 3(f)(vi)
of the Act to the housing scheme in question. The power under Section D
4(1) and 6(1) of the Act has been exercised for extraneous consideration
and at the instance of the persons, who had no role in the decision making
proceas - whether the acquisition of the lands in question shall be for a
public purpose. This itself is enough to vitiate the whole acquisition
proccedjng and render the same .as invalid.
E
In the present case there has been contravention of Section 3(t)(vi)
of the Act in asmuch as there was no prior approval of the State Govern-
ment as required by the said Section before steps for acquisition of the
lands were taken. The report of _Shri G.K. V. Rao points out as to how the
appellant society admitted large number of persons as members who p
cannot be held to be genuine members, the sole object being to transfer
the lands acquired for 'public purpose', to outsiders as part of commercial
venture, undertaken by the office bearer of the appellant society. We are
in agreement with the finding of the High Court that the statutory notifica-
tions issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act have been issuedilne
to the role played by Mis S.R. Constructions, respondent No. 11. On the G
materials on record, High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion
that the proceedings for acquistion of the lands had not been initiated
because the State Government was satisfied about the existence of the
public purpose but at the instance of agent who had collected more than
a crore of rupees for getting the lands acquired by the State Government. H
'

218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A The appeals are accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of
the case there shall be no orders as to costs.

We direct that as a result of quashing of the land acquisition
proceedings including the notifications as aforesaid, the possession of the
lands .shall ~e restored to the respective land owners irrespective of the
B fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of their lands or not. On
restoration of the possession to the land owners they shall refund the
amounts received by them as compensation or otherwise in respect of their
lands. The appellant, the respondents and the State Government including
all conce111ed authorities/persons shall implement the aforesaid directions
C at an early date.

The. eonnected Appeal Nos. 3011-19 of 1995 (arising out of S.L.P.
{C) Nos. 11482-90 of 1991) H.M. T. House Building Co-op. Society v, Syed
Khadar & Ors., have already been disposed of by a reasoned judgment. The
re~ns given for dismissing the said appeals are equally applicable in the
D facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, these special
leave petitions filed on behalf of the same. House Building Co-operative
Society are dismissed. No. Costs.

In the appeals Nos. 3011-19/95 arising out of SJ.,.P {C) Nos. 11482-
E 90. of 1991, after the dismissal of the appeals a direction has been given
that as a result of the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings includ-
ing the notifications in question, the possession of the land shall be restored
to the respective land owners irrespective of the fact whether they had
challenged the 'acquisition of their lands or not. A further direction has
_been given that on restoration of the possession to the land owners, they
F .shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or otherwise
in respect of their lands. We issue a similar direction even in this case. The
petitioJ,ter, the respondents and the State Government including all con-
eemed authorities/persons shall implement the aforesaid directions at an
.early date.

G SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 12104-07, 12600-03, 13150-80,
18297-300 OF 1991.

Lands on basis Qf the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and
6{1) of the Land Acquisition Act, had been acquired for the petitioner-
H House Building Society, treating the said acquisition to be for a public
RM.T. HOUSE BLDG. COP. SOCY. v. SYED KHADER (N.P .SINGH,~.] 219

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

In the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11482"90 of 1991, after
the dismissal of the appeals a direction has been given that as a result of
the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings including the notifications G
in question, the possession of the land shall be restor~d to the respective
land . ~';11ers irre~pective of the fa~t wheth~r they ha4 challenged the
acqWSltion of therr lands or not. A further direction ~ been given that
on restoration of the possession to the land owners, they shall refund the
amounts received by them as compensatio~ or otherwise in respect of their H
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 2 S.C.R.

A lands. We iss.ue a· similar direction even in this case. The petitioner, the
respondents and the State Government including all concerned
authorities/persons shall implement the aforesaid directions at an\ early
r
date.

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 13114 AND 13339 OF 1991.
B
These special leave petitions have been filed on behalf of the
petitioner Amarjyothi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. for setting
·aside the judgment of the High Court, quashing the notification under
Sections 4(t) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, acquiring lands for the
,.... petitione; society. From the judgment of the High Court, it appears that
this society also had entered into an agreement with a developer who had
assured to get the lands in question acquired in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. Petitioner society paid huge amount to the said
developer for the said object. In this case also there is no order of the State
D Government, granting prior approval for acquisition of the lands in ques-
tion, as required by Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act. The High Court has also
referred to the Report of Mr. G.V.K. Rao, about the bogus members.
According to the finding, the Society had admitted 4,050 bogus members.
As such, there is no scope for taking a view contrary one which we have
E taken while disposing of the appeals Nos. 3011-19/95 (arising out of S.L.P.
(C) Nos. 11482-90 of 1991) filed on behalf of the H.M.T. House Building
Co-operative Society. These special leave petitions are accordingly dis-
missed. No costs.

F In the appeals Nos. 3011-19/95 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11482-
90 of 1991, after the dismissal of the appeals a direction has been given
that as a result of the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings includ-
ing tile notifications in question, (he possession of the land shall be restored
tp the respective land owners irrespective of the fact whether they had
challenged the acquisition of their lands or not. A further direction has
G been given that on restoration of t.he possession to the land owners, they
shall refund the amount received by them as compensation or otherwise in
respect of their lands. We issue a similar direction even in this case. The
petitioner, the respondents and the State Government including all con- _
cemed authorities/persons shall implement the aforesaid directions at an
H early date.
'
H.M.T. HOUSE BLDG. C-OP. SOCY. v. SYED KHADER [N.P. SINGH, J.) . 221

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 12032-37 OF 1991. A
These special leave petitions have been filed for setting aside the
judgment of the High C~urt, quashing the notifications under Sections 4(1)
and 6(1} of the Land Acquisition Act, on the ground that the said notifica-
tions had been issued at the instance of the agents, appointed by the
petitioner society. Tlte High Court has also referred to the agreement B
entered into by the petitioner and the said middle-man, who had under-
taken to get the lands in question acquired. The agent had undertaken in
the agreement to manage all concerned "at all levels". No order granting
prior approval by the State Government for the acquisition of the lands, as
required by Section 3(t)(vi) of the Act has been produced. According to C
us, the facts of the present case are no way different from that of the
H.M.T. House Building Co-operative Society, which has been disposed of
by a reasoned judgment. That judgment fully covers the present special
leave petitions also. Accordingly, the special leave petitions are dismissed.
No costs.
D
In the appeals Nos. 3011-19/95 arising out of SLP (C} Nos. 11482-
90 of 1991, after the dismissal of the appeals a direction bas been given
that as a result of the quashing of the land acquisition proc1~edings includ-
ing the notifications in question, the possession of the land shall be restored
to the respective land owners irrespective of the fact wht:ther they had E
challenged the acquisition of their lands or not. A further direction has
been given that on that on restoration of the possession to the land owners,
they shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or other-
wiSe in respect of their lands. We issue a similar direction even in this case.
The petitioner, the respondents and the State Government including all
F
concerned authorities/persons shall implement the aforesaid directions at
an early date.

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 12535-37 OF 1991.

These special leave petitions have been filed against the judgment of G
the High Court, quashing the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act, on the ground that the notifications had been
Iii(, issued at the instance of the agent, appointed by the petitioner society. The
learned counse~ appearing for the petitioner, could not point out as to how
the facts of the present case are different from the facts of the H.M.T. H
'
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A House Building Society, so far this aspect is concerned. He has, however,
/
pointed out th.at m
. the present case, an order had been ISSued
. by the State
Government granting prior approval. In this connection, reference was
made to. an order dated 9.8.1984 by which it is said that th.e Government (:_....
had granted prior approval for the acquisition of the lands in question.
According to us, ~n order dated 9.8.1984 cannot be an order under Section
B
3(t)(vi) because the definition of 'public purpose' which was introduced \>Y
Act 68of1984 came in force with effect from 24.9.1984. As such there was
no ?ccasion. for the State Government to exercise power under Section
3(t)(vi) on 9:$.1984. Any such order must be in terms of Section, 39 read

c
with Section."•40 of Part VII of the Act, which part is applicable when
a~uisition of land is made for companies. It is surprising as to how the
p, esent House Building Co-op. Society was being treated even as a C<.!m-
'r
1
pany on 9.8.1984, because the new definition of company was also intro-

~
duced in Section 3(e) with effect from 24.9.1984. Accordingly, there is not
merit in these special leave petitions, which are dismissed. No costs.
D
In the appeals Nos. 3011-19/95 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11482-
90 of 1991, after the dismissal of the app~als a direction has been given
that as a result of the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings includ-
ing the notifications in question, the possession of the land shall be restored
to the respective land owners irrespective of the fact whether they had
E challenged the acquisition of their lands or not. A further direction has
been given that on restoration of the possession to the land owners, they
shall refund the amount received by them as compensation or otherwise in
respect of their lands. We issue a similar direction even in this case. The
petitioner, the respondents and ~he State Government including all con-
F cerned authorities/persons shall implement the aforesaid directions at an
early date.

SPECIAL LEAVE ~ETITION (C) NO. 5824-.5920 OF 1985.

. The special ~ea~ petition. has bt:en filed on hehalf of the State of
G Karnataka against the same1judgment of the High Court, quashing the ~
notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
acquiring lands for different House Building Co-operative Societies. The
State of Karnataka has purported to justify the issuance of those notifica- ...
)!I
tions. Whether the lands in question had been acquired in accordance with
H law has been examined in detail in the case of H.M.T. House Building
' H.M.T.HOUSEBLDG.COP.SOCY.v. SYEDKHADER[N.P.SINGH,J.) .· 223

Co-operative Society. lri view of the reasons given in the said judgment, the A
special leave petition has to be dismissed. The application for condonation
of delay in filing the special leave petition is also dismissed. No cost.

In the appeals Nos. 3011-19/95 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11482-
90 of 1991, after the dismissal of the appeals a directibn has been given
that as a result of the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings includ- B
ing the notifications in question, the possession of the land shall be restored
to the respective land owners irrespective of the fact whether they had
challenged the acquisition of their lands or not. A further direction has
been given that on restoration of the possession to the land owners, they
shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or otherwise C
in respect of their lands. We issue a similar direction even in this case. The
petitioners and the respondents including all concerned authorities/per-
sons. shall implement the aforesaid directions at an early date.

SLP (C) No.s 12530-34/91 & 13189/91
D
! ::ave granted.

On behalf of the appellant society, it was pointed out that in these
cases, the appellant society had not entered into any agreement with any
agent or contractor as had been done in other cases referred to above. It
was also pointed out that some of the land holders in the present case had E
filed writ applications, which had been dismissed by the High Court.
Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court have also been
dismissed by this Court. It was urged that in this background the High
Court should riot have quashed the notifications under Sections 4(1) and
6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, so far the acquisition for the appellant F
society is concerned. The stand taken on behalf of the appellants, in these
appeals was not challenged on behalf of the respondents. The special
feature of the present case as already pointed out above is that the
appellant society had not entered into any agreement with any agent or
contractor to get the lands. acquired. It was not stated that there was no
prior approval of the appropriate Government to the scheme in question. G
According to. us, the facts of the present case are different from the others,
which have been disposed of by this Court. Accordingly, the appeals are
allowed and the judgment of the High Court so far it relates to the
appellant society, is set aside. No costs.

V.M. Appeals allowed.