Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
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 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 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.
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 A (supra) and Writ Appeal No.2605 of 1991 – Smt. H.N. c 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: " ……………………. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 to strive down those actions as laid down by the Supreme ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab's case cited 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 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 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 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 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 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 c 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., (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 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 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 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 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 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 ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] he was approaching this Court under Article 226 for 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 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 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 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 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 c 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 !aches even assuming that there was some delay on the ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED ANDANR. v. G. JAYARAM REDDYAND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] part of the appellant before approaching this Court by way 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 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 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 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 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 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:
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 [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 ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] owners of their land by use of the power of eminent domain, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 c 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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. In the end, with all this compromise, the Company could ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] acquire and take possession of only 23 acres and 36 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 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. (iv) The Committee notes that out of more than seven projects envisaged in 1981, the Company, is a result of c the tortuous and adverse developments, omissions, commissions and irregularities described in the preceding paragraphs, could manage to initiate only two schemes, 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 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. 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."
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 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 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 ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] writ petition questioning the demand of the earlier years was 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 c (2011] 11 S.C.R. 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 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 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 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 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)
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: " ……. 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 fundamental rights cannot easily allow itself to be ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANR. v. G. 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 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 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 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. (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 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. (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 [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 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: c "It is well-settled that under Article 226, the power of the 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 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 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 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 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)
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 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 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 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, c but also filed applications under Section 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 Division Bench of the High Court nullified the acquisition on the ground of fraud and misuse of the'provisions of the Act.
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 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- 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. JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] . special leave petitions filed by the brothers of respondent No.1 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 (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 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 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 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 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 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 12 acres 34 guntas land to him for house building project. After 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.
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. JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] reasonable time and not to those who remained silent. In this 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 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 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.