Judgment 1. This writ petition filed in the year 2007 comprising of as many as 16 petitioners with payment of court fee for as many petitioners, but with a single number, purporting to be in terms of the relevant rules and orders passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, governing registration of petitions at the relevant time, has remained for examination only in respect of petitioners 2, 10, 13 and 16 and though originally one advocate Sri Vinod Prasad, had filed power for all the petitioners, with developments like the other petitioners having found solace by entering into compromise with the fourth respondent-house building cooperative society and writ petition in so far as such petitioners is concerned, having not survived for further examination, has remained before the court for examination at the instance of only the aforesaid four of the original sixteen writ petitioners. 2. As of now, second petitioner [Kempaiah] claims interest in an extent of 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.107 of Nelakadaranahalli village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, 10th petitioner [Nanjundaiah, since deceased by his legal representative N Arasappa] claims interest in an extent of 1 acre 32 guntas of land in Sy.No.108/1 of the very village; 13th petitioner [Hanumaiah] claims interest in an extent of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.115 of very village; and 16th petitioner [Chandra] claims interest in an extent of 38 acres in Sy.No.100 of the very village. The petitioners have sought for the following relief: i) issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned notification in No.LAQ(1)SR 3/87-88 dated: 22.11.1988 published in the Karnataka Gazette on 01.12.1988 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-“B” and in No.KME 242 LAQ B 84 dated: 04.12.1989 issued by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-“C”, as illegal, null and void and unenforceable in law. ((a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Notification under Section 16(2) No.SLAO/HBCS/8/87-88 dated: 23.10.1992 vide Annexure-P, No.SLAO/HBCS/8/87-88 dated: 19.01.1993 vide Annexure-Q and No.IAO:HBCS:8:87-88 dated: 01.03.2005 vide Annexure-R and communication dated: 13.11.1992, 20.01.1993 and 26.07.2004 ordering to hand over possession to the 4th respondent at Annexure-S1 to S3; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Government to consider the request of the petitioners and others to withdraw and de-notify from land acquisition proceedings the lands in Survey Nos. 1, 2, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 115/P and 123 of Nelakadaranahalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore. (ii) Issue any other writ or order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. Writ petitioners are before this court in the wake of the state government having acted at the behest of fourth respondent-house building cooperative society, which moved the government for acquisition of lands in as many as 4 villages namely Laggare, Jarakabande Kaval, Nelakadaranahalli and Jakkur, in all measuring 97 acres in different survey numbers of these village, but not acting by itself, but having availed of the services of a middleman viz., one V.M. Mariswamappa, through an agreement entered into between this agent and forth respondent-house building cooperative society in terms of agreement dated 21-9-1984 [copy at Annexure-M1 to the writ petition]. 4. The government, it appears, became active for acquiring this extent of land in favour of the society for such purpose and records had been built up and such developments can be inferred from the annexure attached to the statement of objections filed on behalf of first respondent-state government, filed today in the court during the course of hearing. 5. Earliest developments can be found in Annuexre-R5 dated 18-11-1987, originating from the state government i.e. the Revenue Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, addressed to the special Deputy Commissioner Bangalore, conveying the approval of the government for initiating acquisition proceedings in respect of an extent of 97 acres of land in favour of fourth respondent-house building cooperative society, as recommended by a three-man committee and the State level coordination committee, subject to certain conditions indicated therein. 6. It appears, the extent of land was while reduced from the original extent of 97 acres as indicated in the communication at Annexure-5 to the statement of objections filed on behalf of the first respondent, to an extent of 79 acres 25 guntas as per the further communication dated 7-11-1988 [Annexure-R6]. 7. It is significant to notice that all the present petitioners are residents of Nelakadaranahalli wherein as per the initial proposal for acquisition of land was to an extent of 12 acres 17 guntas, but this extent got enlarged to 59 acres 31 guntas under the subsequent communication. 8. 7. It is significant to notice that all the present petitioners are residents of Nelakadaranahalli wherein as per the initial proposal for acquisition of land was to an extent of 12 acres 17 guntas, but this extent got enlarged to 59 acres 31 guntas under the subsequent communication. 8. It is in the wake of such developments, the matter had reached the stage of issue of preliminary notification dated 22-11-1988 [copy at Annexure-B to the writ petition] and was further followed up by a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short ‘the Act’] dated 4-12-1989, gazetted on the same day [copy at Annexure-C to the writ petition]. 9. In the final notification the total extent of land mentioned insofar as it related to lands located in Nelakadaranahalli is 58 acres 9 guntas with kharabland to the extent of 37 guntas and in all being 59 acres 6 guntas of land as against the total extent of 79 acres 25 guntas of land as had been notified in the preliminary notification dated 22.11.1988. 10. It appears some of the land owners including some amongst the original petitioners in this writ petition had questioned the legality of such acquisition proceedings by filing W.P.Nos.22979-22985/1989 inter alia contending that the 4th respondent-Society is not a bona fide Society; that acquisition of land by the State Government in favour of such a Society does not sub-serve any public purpose and therefore, the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act by the State Government is not valid and had also contended that with the State not contributing any amount to the compensation that will become payable to the land owners in terms of the awards to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the acquisition is only an acquisition purely for a private purpose and therefore, no public purpose is involved as had been mentioned in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and as declared by the Government in the subsequent declaration issued for the purpose of Section 6 of the Act. A learned Single Judge of this Court found merit in this contention and allowed the writ petitions. A learned Single Judge of this Court found merit in this contention and allowed the writ petitions. The Society having carried the matter further by way of appeal in W.A.No.9619-9625/1996 C/w W.A.No.8797/1996, Division Bench of this Court in terms of the judgment reported in 2002 (1) KLJ 469 in the case of KARNATAKA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD. VS. KARITHIMMAIAH AND OTHERS allowed the appeals, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petitions interalia noticing that on a perusal of the record and certain material placed before the Court by the State Government, particularly that the Society had furnished the details of the scheme it had for developing the layout after acquisition of the land etc., the instant Society was not caught in the web of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in H.M.T. HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY Vs. SYED KHADER reported in AIR 1995 SC 2244 , purporting to distinguish the case of the Society as one which is not to be characterized as an acquisition for a fraudulent purpose but an acquisition for a bona fide purpose and for the benefit of the members of the Society. Thus the Division Bench sustained the Section 6 declaration issued by the State Government and dismissed the writ petitions. This judgment is strongly relied upon by the Society to contend that some of the very petitioners having come before this Court in the second round of writ litigation suppressing such earlier development and even otherwise, petitions filed in the year 2007 in respect of acquisition proceedings of the year 1988-1989 is highly belated in time and therefore, be dismissed as hit by delay and laches etc. It is the stand of the respondents that pursuant to the Section 6 declaration, further proceedings having been taken by the Land Acquisition Officer, awards are passed and possession of the subject lands have also been taken and the factum of taking possession by the acquiring authority from the land owners has also been published in the gazette in terms of subsection (2) of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as provided [Vide Mysore Act 17 of 1961, Secs.4 and 18 (w.e.f. 24.8.1961)] and therefore, writ petitions are absolutely without merit; that the contention or assertion of the petitioner that they are still in possession cannot be accepted or countenanced in the wake of the statutory presumption as it prevails under sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act; that the petitioners having approached this Court suppressing the facts and some of them in the second round, petitions are liable to be dismissed with costs etc. However, details of the lands of the surviving petitioners who are only four in number are as under:- They are before this Court asserting that they remain in possession in respect of the extent of land as indicated above; that their interest has to be protected in the wake of the acquisition proceedings being not for a bona fide purpose nor the Society being a bona fide or a genuine Society; that ever since its inception, the conduct and the manner of functioning of the Society only demonstrates that it is a Society with dubious distinction; that even before the Society requests the government for acquiring the lands for the purpose of formation of layout etc., it had engaged middlemen and had paid considerable amount for espousing its cause before the Government. In an enquiry which had been conducted against the Society and its Directors, the then Director one Mr. M. Shivagangaiah had deposed before the Enquiry Officer that the Society had paid bribe of 3.00 lakhs to the Land Acquisition Officer and for a good measure petitioners have placed a copy of the agreement between the Society and its commission agents, copy produced as Annexure-M to the rejoinder filed by the writ petitioners in response to the statement of objections that had been filed on behalf of the Society, which is part of Annexure-H. 11. Dictation which had been interrupted on 4th February, 2011, is being resumed today, the 21st day of February, 2011, though in between the matter had been listed for further dictation, but could not be taken up for want of time or non-availability of one or the other counsel and what with the learned Additional Government Advocate taking his own time to put in the relevant factual information in the form of a tabular column, particularly, for understanding the total extent of lands notified in Nelakadirenahalli Village. 12. 12. It is based on this material and further supporting material in the form of AnnexureR1 which is a Xerox copy of the Karnataka Gazette dated 29.10.1992 publishing the Notification dated 23.10.1992 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 16[2] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of 5 acres 22 guntas in Nelakadirenahalli Village and 8 acres 23 guntas of Land comprised in two survey numbers in J B Kaval Village and Annexure-R2-a like publication in the Gazette dated 11.1.1993, publishing the notification at Annexure-R2 which are said to be based on the proceedings of what is described as handing over the taking over of possession of land as per the Notification dated 4.12.1989 purporting to evidence the handing over and taking over possession of the lands on 4.1.1993 [though the typed portion indicate that it was __day of December 1992 only date which is inserted in hand is 4.1.1993] in respect of 12 acres 11 guntas in Nelakadirenahalli Village, purporting to have been again taken under Section 47 of the Act and a like communication from the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the Secretary of the Society dated 20.1.1993, but evidence to handing over possession of the subject lands in an extent of 3 acres 7 guntas and another extent of 12 acres 11 guntas in Nelakadirenahalli Village as Annexure-R4 have all been produced along with another like communication to the Secretary of the Society dated 13.11.1992 in respect of total extent of 5 acres 22 guntas in Nelakadirenahalli Village and 8 acres 23 guntas in J B Kaval Village also forming part of Annexure-R4 and a copy of the communication dated 18.11.1987 in No.RD242 AQB 84 originating from the Karnataka Government Secretariat, Revenue Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Karnataka addressed to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, conveying the approval of the Government for initiating acquisition proceedings of 97 acres of land spread over Laggere Village, J B Kaval Village, Nelakadirenahalli Village and Jakkur village. 13. Total extent of 97 acres of land spread over Laggere Village 11 acres, Jarakabande Kaval 8 acres 23 guntas, Nelakadirenahalli 12 acres 17 guntas and Jakkur 65 acres in favour of Karnataka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha as per the recommendation of the three men committee and the S.L.CC. 13. Total extent of 97 acres of land spread over Laggere Village 11 acres, Jarakabande Kaval 8 acres 23 guntas, Nelakadirenahalli 12 acres 17 guntas and Jakkur 65 acres in favour of Karnataka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha as per the recommendation of the three men committee and the S.L.CC. subject to conditions mentioned therein is produced as Annexure-R5 to the statement of objections filed by the learned AGA dated 20.01.2011 and the modified extent of lands sought to be acquired in favour of the society subsequent to the matter receiving some attention at the level of the government, as per letter addressed to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, dated 7.11.1988 granting permission of the government for acquiring of land as under:- a. Laggere-11 acres 11 guntas b. J.B.Kaval-8 acres 23 guntas c. Nelakadirenahalli-59 acres 31 guntas In all 79 acres 25 guntas of land as indicated in Annexure R6 produced along with the statement of objections dated 20.1.2011 and affidavit, filed in the writ petition on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and being supported by the affidavit of Mr. Venkateshamurthy, S/o Late T. Masthaiah, working as Under Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, M.S. Building, Bangalore-560 001 dated 22.2.2011 have all been placed before the Court to support the validity of the acquisition proceedings and to urge for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. This statement of objections coming belatedly in the year 2011, though the matter was being examined by this Court from the year 2007 and only after considerable awareness being created about the duty of the executive part of the State to place before the court, the relevant records when judicial review takes place and further directions to the government for placing the factual material before this Court to examine the validity only reveals the sorry state of affairs in which the Government Department functions, particularly, the manner in which the revenue authorities doubling up as land acquisition authorities under the provisions of either the Land Acquisition Act or even under the legislature providing for development in urban areas such as the Bangalore Development Authority Act or as to how the authorities under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act are all functioning! 15. 15. This case is a typical example of the most casual, lethargic, negligent, irresponsible manner in which the concerned officials exercise statutory powers in an arbitrary or authoritative manner being unmindful of the requirements of law and travails of the citizens. 16. In fact this case can be characterized as a classical example of such conduct but to cover up all such mis-deeds and to cover up not only the fraudulent manner in which the 4th respondent-Society has ever since its inception been functioning and which has all along been supported by the officials of the State Government and exercising power by the statutory authorities under the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1894, have all functioned, only shows that with the government officials involved in the matter are equally privy to the fraudulent acts of the Society and in fact are only trying to cover up this mis-deeds by suppressing the facts and without revealing the true facts before the court even during judicial review of administrative action. 17. It is to be noticed that in the present writ petition in the first round of writ litigation before this Court, the Society and the State Government had successfully warded off challenge to the acquisition as in the earlier round of litigation culminated in the judgment reported in 2002 (1) KLJ 469 in the case of KARNATAKA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD., VS. KARITHIMMAIAH AND OTHERS. In fact this judgment is the trump-card for the society to defend the present litigation, on behalf of the fourth respondent-Society as urged by the learned counsel for the Society and which is sought to be supported by the learned AGA by raising all possible and plausible technical defences such as the plea of res judicata, the plea of estoppel and the plea of delay and laches, which is of considerable significance as noticed, it can be that the learned AGA is more keen on getting the writ petition dismissed on technical pleas rather than to get over the hurdle of this Court going into the merits of the petition and embarking on a closer scrutiny into the records of the State Government as maintained by Special Land Acquisition Officer. Unfortunately for the respondents this Court having issued rule on 25.10.2010, it has become inevitable for the respondents to answer the issue of rule nisi and which has become a very revealing journey in the process, particularly, when the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents are examined in the light of the original records placed before the Court. 18. One submission made at the bar by the learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State Government is that the record of the Land Acquisition proceedings do not contain in it, any mahazar drawn by the authorities in respect of the proceedings, particularly, for taking over physical possession of the notified lands from the possession of the land owners by the land acquisition officer in the presence of any punchas to evidence the actual taking over of the possession of the subject lands in the first instance or about the handing over of possession being resisted by the land owners and therefore, there being the necessity to seek the aid of the Magistrate to enforce surrender in terms of the provisions of Section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which statutory provisions reads as under:- “47. Magistrate to enforce surrender-If the Collector is opposed or impeded in taking possession under this Act of any land, he shall, if a Magistrate, enforce the surrender of the land to himself, and, if not a Magistrate, he shall apply to a Magistrate or (within the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay) to the Commissioner of Police and such Magistrate or the Commissioner (as the case may be) shall enforce the surrender of the land to the Collector.” 19. In fact it is conceded that any type of mahazar conducted on the spot i.e., on the land, is conspicuously absent from the records and the records only contain proceedings drawn up at the office of the Land Acquisition Officer under the relevant statutory provisions! 20. In fact considerable reliance is placed on presumption as it arises in terms of provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act. This is an amendment to Section 16 by the Mysore Act which reads as under:- “16(2): The fact of such taking possession may be notified by Deputy Commissioner in the Official Gazette; and such notification shall be evidence of such fact. [Vide Mysore Act 17 of 1961, secs. This is an amendment to Section 16 by the Mysore Act which reads as under:- “16(2): The fact of such taking possession may be notified by Deputy Commissioner in the Official Gazette; and such notification shall be evidence of such fact. [Vide Mysore Act 17 of 1961, secs. 4 and 18 (w.e.f. 24-8-1961)].” 21. This obviously is the reason as to why the learned AGA has placed considerable reliance on copies of gazette publication produced before the Court as Annexures-R1 and R2 and the further submission is that though these two gazette publications by themselves do not evidence the taking of possession of the entire extent of lands notified for acquisition, copies of notifications which are relevant to the extent of interest claimed by the writ petitioners have been placed before the Court. 22. Be that as it may, the acquisition records placed before the Court in respect of the entire extent of land indicates that nowhere in the records is available the mahazar drawn on the land evidencing the taking over of the factual physical possession of the land by either the Land Acquisition Officer or the concerned Magistrate in terms of Section 47 of the Act as amended by the Karnataka Act. 23. The learned AGA has also drawn my attention to an official memorandum No.LAQ.CR.50/92-93 dated 18.11.1992 which reads as under:- “OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM Sub: Acquisition of lands measuring 59 A 06 G of land in several Sy.Nos. of Nelakadirenahalli village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk in favour of Karnataka House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore, enforcement of lands under Section 47 of land acquisition act. REF: Letter No.SLAO.HBCS.8/87-88, dated 23/30.10.1992. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Sub-Division, Bangalore in his letter under reference above has reported that the lands in several Survey Nos. of Nelakadirenahalli Village, Yeswanthapur Hobli and Jarakabandekaval Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk have been acquired in favour of Karnataka House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore vide Notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in No.RD 242 AQB 84. dt.4.12.1989. Awards have been passed and approved by Govt. In No.RD 131 AQB 91, dt.3.11.91. Award notices under Section 12(2) of the land acquisition Act have been issued on 18.3.1992. The claimants have not come forward to hand over possession of the said lands. Hence he has requested to surrender possession of the said land u/s 47 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In No.RD 131 AQB 91, dt.3.11.91. Award notices under Section 12(2) of the land acquisition Act have been issued on 18.3.1992. The claimants have not come forward to hand over possession of the said lands. Hence he has requested to surrender possession of the said land u/s 47 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the circumstances explained by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore and powers vested in the under section 47 of the land acquisition act 1894 I S, Siddagangaiah, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore Sub-Division, Bangalore do hereby direct Sri. Ateeq Ahmed, the Tahsildar and Taluk Magistrate, Bangalore North Taluk to enforce surrender of possession of 12 acres 11 guntas of land of Nelakadirenahalli Village, Yeswanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and handover the same to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Sub-Division, Bangalore immediately. Details of Sy.No. and extent is as follows:- Taluk: Bangalore North Taluk Village: Neelakadiranahalli Hobli: Yeshwantapur Sd/-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore Sub-Division. Bangalore.” 24. Based on this official memorandum the factum of taking of possession of subject lands is sought to be conclusively established in conjunction with the Annuexres-R1 to 6 placed before the Court along with the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 in this writ petition. 25. In a matter of this nature, particularly, for examining the legality of acquisition proceedings are seldom matters, which arrest or retain the attention of the Court for allowing the present petition more so, when either the surviving petitioners or others who had approached this Court earlier and had suffered adverse orders and normally such petitions are thrown out of this Court without a second look. Perhaps fortunately for the petitioners and unfortunately for the respondents it has not happened and if one may say so, the proceedings have lingered on at the Court and in the course of examination of original records of the acquisition proceedings it has only revealed a kind of deception played by the officials of the State Government against all, fraud played by the respondent-Society for whose benefit the acquisition proceeding were initiated and the manner in which the statutory powers were misused, abused and resulted in arbitrary exercise of power to the detriment of the private land owners only to enable unscrupulous, unworthy persons behind the 4th respondent-Society to make gains or profit at the cost of bona fide, genuine land owners, who are sought to be displaced or up-rooted to make way for the so called members of the Society for their housing purpose! 26. It is a well known legal principle that fraud and deception vitiates all proceedings and in fact even a judgment and decree obtained by playing fraud on the adversary or sometimes even the Court has been set at naught in a subsequent suit and the earlier result is reversed. While the principle is well recognized and is a very sound principle to ensure that tricksters or dodgers do not get away with an undeserving, unlawful gain by pulling wool over one’s eyes and when once it is found that fraud, deception has played a role in overcoming defence such as limitation, res judicata, estoppel etc., can never come in the way of defending an unlawful gain or profit. 27. 27. What is urged on behalf of the respondents by the learned counsel for the State Government and the learned counsel appearing for the Society is that they have acted in good faith; that the State Government has taken sufficient precautions or steps to have the matter referred to a committee constituted for seeking such proposals and after going through the procedure as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act and after re-evaluating the extent of land that is required and the suitable extent of land of the three villages and after modifying the extent in each village etc., and with the earlier litigation by the very petitioners having failed and with most number of petitioners having got their dispute settled either through private negotiations or through the Land Acquisition Officer by way of compensation etc., only a few surviving petitioners cannot make any difference to the validity of the acquisition proceedings; that they cannot at this point of time seek to question the legality of the proceedings; that with the Society having taken over possession or substantial extent of land and the interest that the petitioners are claiming interest only in respect of a very limited extent of land i.e., to a total extent of 4 acres 12 guntas with all the four petitioners put together, there is absolutely no need or scope for examination of the legality or otherwise of the writ petition which in fact is nothing short of mis-use, abuse of the process of this Court by the repeated petitions presented before the Court and in fact this writ petition should be dismissed with exemplary cost etc. 28. 28. Perhaps that should have been the case if the records as placed before the Court could have supported not only the case of the State Government but also of the Society but the Society on its part has not placed any worthwhile material to indicate that its conduct is bona fides, though it is the claim that the Society is in existence ever since 14.3.1974 having been registered as a Society for the benefit of its members to get residential accommodation [plots] as per the registration of the Society and even to the extent of Sri Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for the Society claiming that the Society has very successfully executed many schemes and layout plans and handed over sites in favour of the members of the Society, leave alone the good number of other schemes in the present scheme nothing in placed on record to show that the Society has distributed even a single site in favour of the members of the Society from out of lands which it has acquired or claims to have taken possession in the present scheme; that it had made any development and has handed over sites in favour of any member and the only excuse offered is that the present writ petition was an impediment for the Society for effective implementation of the project etc., which is nothing short of a lame excuse and if as is sought to be putforth before this Court if the Society in the year 2002 as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 2002 (1) KLJ 469 in the case of KARNATAKA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD., VS. KARITHIMMAIAH AND OTHERS, the Society need not have had any apprehension from giving up the hope of implementing its project for the layout and distributing the sites to those members from out of the land which it claims to have taken over by the State Government and handed over to the Society, but that not having been done, it is obvious that what all is being claimed is not made good before the Court and particularly, the claim that the acquisition proceedings is to the benefit of its members, is nothing short of a joke and a misrepresentation before the Court keeping in consonance with its manner of functioning ever since the Society was registered way back in the year 1974. 29. In the present writ petition, petitioners have placed on record material which are produced as Annexures M1 and M2, which is a copy of the agreement entered into between the Society, middlemen, Sri. Bhagya Enterprises represented by D.M. Mariswamappa, who acting as a GPA holder of the Society has given statement before the Land Acquisition Officer to support the documents produced as Exs.D1, D3 and D4 which are claimed to be consent awards as submitted by the learned AGA that the compensation amount payable in terms of the consent awards has been paid to land owners and this is made the basis of claiming that there are consent awards. This is nothing short of a fraud being played on the land owners as there is nothing on record to indicate that any compensation has in fact been paid to such land owners, but on the other hand, the person who had acted as a middlemen on behalf of the society as per the agreement for negotiating the terms for acquisition with the Government, doubles up as a representative of the land owners, to make a submission on their behalf to state that the land owners have all been paid compensation as per the awards. In fact a recital in the very agreement indicates that the memorandum of Sri. Bhagya Enterprises was to pay a fee at the rate of `81/- (Rupees Eighty One Only) per square yard in respect of the lands acquired in favour of the Society and which the Society has got hold of via the acquisition proceedings. The recital extracted from the agreement is very revealing. “5. The first party agrees to pay the second party at the rate of Rs.81/- (Rupees Eighty One Only) per square yard for the house sites as per the sanctioned plan of the BDA.” 30. Unfortunately this material was very conveniently suppressed from the scrutiny of this Court in the earlier round of litigation, particularly, resulting in the judgment dated 7.8.2001 by the Division Bench of the High Court in the appeal of the Society and in fact though was privy to this development has very conveniently retained the land with the Society by suppressing/withholding this information from the court to sustain the validity of the acquisition proceedings for which the society had ventured upon purporting to be for the benefit of the members of the society. 31. 31. In fact this aspect was subject matter of scrutiny before the G.V.K. Rao committee. What was stated on behalf of the Society by the then existing Secretary of the Society is that he was not in a position to place material facts to make submission as all records of the Society had been taken away by his predecessors one by name Sri. Lakkappa Gowda. A non-disclosure of this sort is made use of by the Society, contending that G.V.K. Rao Committee did not give an adverse finding and against the Society and in fact have claimed to have got a clean chit issued to the Society! but the factual finding as had been record by the Committee as is extracted from Annexure-H, the report of the G.V.K. Rao Committee reads as under:- “KARNATAKA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BANGALORE. This Society which was registered in the year 1974 has its jurisdiction confined to Yeshwanthpur, Yelahanka and Hasaraghatta Hoblies of Bangalore District. There are over 2100 members in the Society of whom most of them reside outside the jurisdiction of the Society. The Society even did not produce the membership applications saying that the applications remained with one Sri. M. Lakkappa Gowda who was previously working in this Society. When he left the Society’s job he did not hand over the records. It is difficult to understand how the Society allowed the records to be in Lakkappagowda’s house. Regarding the admission of ineligible persons especially those residing outside the jurisdiction the Hon. Secretary Sri. Shivagangaiah states that they have admitted these ineligible persons on the basis of the advise given by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies that any persons residing within Bangalore can be admitted as members. This is also a not acceptable suggestion, since the Byelaws have not provided for admitting the persons residing outside the jurisdiction of the Society. Share ledgers are not maintained properly, even the addresses of the members are not entered in the share ledgers. The Society collected site deposits from about 1200 members at different rates for the sites in different layouts. For Nelakadirenahalli layout the Society collected at the rate of Rs.11,000/- and Rs.22,000/- for the sites measuring 30’ x 40’ and 40’ x 60’ respectively, for similar sites in Laggere Layout they have collected upto Rs.12,500/- and Rs.25,000/-and in Jarakabande Kaval Layout Rs.6,000/- and Rs.12,000/-. For Nelakadirenahalli layout the Society collected at the rate of Rs.11,000/- and Rs.22,000/- for the sites measuring 30’ x 40’ and 40’ x 60’ respectively, for similar sites in Laggere Layout they have collected upto Rs.12,500/- and Rs.25,000/-and in Jarakabande Kaval Layout Rs.6,000/- and Rs.12,000/-. The Society entered into agreements with three agents namely, Ramanjaneya Enterprises, Bhagya Enterprises and Maitri Enterprises for three layouts at Jarakabande Kaval, Nallakadirenahally and Laggere. As per these agreements the Society is to acquire about 8½ Acres through M/s. Ramanjaneya Enterprises at the rate of Rs.46.90 per square yard of sital area and 73 acres 14 guntas through M/s. Bhagya Enterprises at the rate of Rs.81 per square yard of sital area and 11 Acres through M/s. Maitri Enterprises at the rate of Rs.91.90 per square yard of sital area. None of these agreements are registered. The Society has so far paid about Rs.5.5 Lakhs to M/s. Ramanjaneya Enterprises, Rs.30 Lakhs to M/s. Bhagya Enterprises and Rs.6 Lakhs to M/s. Maitri Enterprises and the Society has also paid about Rs.3 Lakhs to the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Land Acquisition proceedings are yet to be initiated. The Society has paid exhorbitant amounts as advances to the land lords and the General Power of Attorney was obtained in the name of agent. The version of the Hon. Treasurer of the Society that Sri. Lakkappa Gowda has manipulated the records regarding admission of members though there was no resolution in the committee appears too simplistic. There is no explanation as to why the Hon. Secretary who is responsible for the maintenance of the records has failed to look into these aspects at appropriate time. If most of the records can remain in the custody of a Clerk appointed by the Society and if all the elected members of the committee have to remain mere spectators to the bungling committed by such an employee of the Society, it is very clear that the committee cannot discharge its functions as per the Byelaws. This type of situation would not have arisen if the Society’s office bearers have taken sufficient care to ensure that the records remain in the Society’s office and this clerk functions from the Society’s office. This type of situation would not have arisen if the Society’s office bearers have taken sufficient care to ensure that the records remain in the Society’s office and this clerk functions from the Society’s office. Conclusions: The very fact that a person employed by the Society deserted the Society without even hading over the records and the Society could not even get the records into their possession indicates the helplessness of the Committee of management in discharging their functions and the present committee cannot be entrusted with the running of the affairs of the Society. The Society has also paid huge amounts to the agents and landlords and the GPA they have obtained is also in the name of the agent and not in the name of the Society. The Society did not exercise necessary care in their financial transactions especially regarding the agreements and payment of advances. Sd/- CONTROLLER OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AND ENQUIRY OFFICER.” 32. What is more shocking and revealing is the statement made by the representatives of the Society before the Committee particularly, about the payment details even by way of graft to the Land Acquisition Officer for the acquisition proceedings! Even the sordid details regarding the payment made to the Land Acquisition Officer has been adversely commented by the Committee, “We have entered into agreements in the year 19.3 with M/s Maitri Enterprises for acquiring about 11 acres of land @ Rs.91.90 per square yard of sital area and with M/s. Ramanjaneya Enterprises for acquiring 4 acres 23 guntas of land @ 46.90 per square yard of sital area and also entered into an agreement in the year 1984 with M/s. Bhagya Enterprises for acquiring 73 acres 20 guntas of land @ Rs.81 per square yard of sital area. In pursuance of these agreements we have so far paid to Rs.5.5 lakhs to Ramanjaneya Enterprises and Rs.6 lakhs to Maitri Enterprises and Rs.30 lakhs to Bhagya Enterprises. Most of these amounts paid to the agents have in turn been paid to the landlords and the agents have obtained the agreements from the landlords. We have also paid Rs.3 Lakhs to the LAO, and the notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act is under issue. We have also furnished the details of the amounts paid to the agents and the land lords, to the LAO in connection with the land acquisition proceedings. We have also paid Rs.3 Lakhs to the LAO, and the notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act is under issue. We have also furnished the details of the amounts paid to the agents and the land lords, to the LAO in connection with the land acquisition proceedings. In some cases we had paid amounts exceeding those agreed in the agreements for the present stage of acquisition, since the landlords insisted full settlement of their consideration and they were prepared to execute the GPA on the name of the agents. Accordingly, in some cases the agents have also obtained the GPA by making full payments to the landlords. However, the GPAs are not registered with the Sub Registrar. The landlords have also given an undertaking that they are not to receive any more amounts from the LAO and they will also not challenge the land acquisition proceedings. For the layout to be formed in the land being acquired through M/s. Bhagya Enterprises, we are collecting the site deposits upto a maximum of Rs.11,000/- and Rs.22,000/- for the sites measuring 30’ x 40’ and 40’ x 60’ respectively. Similarly, for the layout to be formed in the lands being acquired through M/s. Maitri Enterprises we are collecting site deposits upto a maximum of Rs.12,500/- and Rs.25,000/- for the sites measuring 30’ x 40’ and 40’ x 60’ respectively and also for the layout to be formed in the land being acquired through M/s. Ramanjaneya Enterprises, we are collecting the sites deposits upto maximum of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.12,000/- for the sites measuring 30’ x 40’ and 40’ x 60’ respectively. We have collected site deposits for bigger dimensions also on the same line. Ever since the inception of the Society we have not distributed any sites to the members. Since Sri. M. Lokappagowda, had deserted us without even returning all the Society’s records we could not submit all the records and documents as called for in the notices issued from this office.” 33. Ever since the inception of the Society we have not distributed any sites to the members. Since Sri. M. Lokappagowda, had deserted us without even returning all the Society’s records we could not submit all the records and documents as called for in the notices issued from this office.” 33. In this background, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the earlier round of writ litigation, the Society and even the officials of the State Government have virtually played fraud on this Court by projecting as though the acquisition proceedings in respect of the entire extent of land had elicited the approval of the three men committee by merely showing the proceedings of the three men committee in respect of 12 acres of land in Nelakadaranahalli whereas the adverse report of the GVK Rao Committee in respect of the functioning of the Society and the way the Society has duped its members, by having failed to distribute even a single site to them have all been blissfully suppressed and such information had been in fact withheld by the Society and the State Government, and this makes all the difference for the examination of the present writ petition and the present writ petition cannot be dismissed on the defence as is sought to be putforth by the respondents that the matter had received the attention of this Court earlier and therefore the writ petition should be automatically dismissed etc. 34. Even the observations made by the representatives of the G.V.K. Rao Committee indicates the fraudulent manner the Society is functioning and the Society has duped large number of members by receiving huge deposits but had not distributed even a single site in favour of any of its members even till the proceedings were conducted before the G.V.K. Rao Committee. This position has not improved one inch as the Society has not come forward to place before this Court anything to indicate that it has distributed any site in favour of any of its members! 35. If such facts should have been to the knowledge of this Court in the wake of law which had already been laid down by the Court in identical circumstances, while examining the manner of functioning of similar Housing Society and which was the subject matter of judgment of Division Bench of this Court in NARAYANA REDDY Vs. 35. If such facts should have been to the knowledge of this Court in the wake of law which had already been laid down by the Court in identical circumstances, while examining the manner of functioning of similar Housing Society and which was the subject matter of judgment of Division Bench of this Court in NARAYANA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 1991 KAR 2248 on which learned counsel for the petitioners have placed considerable reliance, contending that the respondent-Society being virtually in the very position as the Society’s manner of functioning had gone on in whose favour acquisition proceedings had been examined by this Court, the resultant position would have been only to allow the writ petition in the earlier round and not as per the earlier decision of this Court in the decision of reported in 2002 (1) KLJ 469 in the case of KARNATAKA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD., VS. KARITHIMMAIAH AND OTHERS and that judgment having been brought about by suppression of facts, misrepresentation and outright deception, cannot come in the way of the present examination so as to reject the submission of the learned counsel Mr. Prasad, Mr. Mahesha and Mr. Hebbar appearing for the petitioners. 36. Supreme Court having found occasion to examine the very matter in the case of H.M.T HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY Vs. SYED KHADER reported in AIR 1995 SC 2244 and having found that even as pointed out by the report of G.V.K. Rao Committee the concerned Society had admitted large number of persons as members who are not even genuine members and having gone about acquiring lands through the services of middlemen and agents purporting to move/influence the Government acting on their behalf in acquisition of lands in the name of public purpose which was not explained and having affirmed the view taken by the High Court and as High Court in fact having been convinced about the factual situation as obviously in the writ petition what was examined by the High Court for allowing the same, the present position is not any different and independent of the decision of this Court in the case of the very petitioner-Society as reported in 2002 (1) KLJ 469 in the case of KARNATAKA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD., VS. KARITHIMMAIAH AND OTHERS, the present writ petition is only to be allowed and the entire acquisition proceedings quashed on such factual basis itself as it is nothing short of the State government lending its statutory power of acquiring private land in the name of public purpose to help or enable an errant defrauding Housing Society like the respondent being handed over the land from the private persons in the name of public purpose which is nothing short of gross mis-use of statutory power. 37. While such is the factual position, let me examine the legal position as the learned AGA has only harped upon the legal position as even the records could not support the submission made on behalf of the State Government and Society on the basis of the available records which has only fully demonstrated the false claim made by the State Government to assert that possession of the land is taken over from the land owners in terms of Gazette Notification issued under sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act, which is produced as Annexures R1 and R2-the gazette notifications. 38. The first legal hurdle i.e., placed before the Court for the examination of the writ petition is delay and laches. It is pointed out by the learned AGA that some petitioners had participated in the Section 5A enquiry conducted in the year 1989 and concluded in the year 1992 and therefore the writ petition filed in the year 2007 is definitely a stale petition; that inaction and carelessness or letharginess is writ large in the manner in which the petitioners have been seeking relief for the entire acquisition proceedings to be quashed and therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed by this Court. 39. It is a well settled principle that an indolent, careless, negligent person cannot approach the Court for relief at any point of time he wishes and that no premium can be placed on such belated petitions and courts will not lend their authority and power for providing relief to such an indolent person. 40. 39. It is a well settled principle that an indolent, careless, negligent person cannot approach the Court for relief at any point of time he wishes and that no premium can be placed on such belated petitions and courts will not lend their authority and power for providing relief to such an indolent person. 40. In fact the law of limitation is based on this principle that things which have happened long back which have attained finality which have reached a settled position should not be disturbed to the detriment of one or the other person or at the instance of a person who has allowed such things to develop over a period of time and has approached this Court after a long lapse of time. While it is true that in writ jurisdiction there is no limitation prescribed, writ jurisdiction being a discretionary jurisdiction, even the principle of delay and laches will have to be considered while granting relief to a person approaching this Court invoking writ jurisdiction. Stale causes should not be reopened is the basic premise on which the principle of delay and laches is put against a person approaching this Court for relief. A cause which is current or live cannot be considered as a stale cause. It is also a well accepted and established principle that fraud and deception unravels everything and it is open to the affected persons to approach the Courts for relief, when once fraud or deception is realised or detected. 41. While the legal principle evolved in the wake of English adversary legal system, which is protected by common law system and evolved over a period of time in the traditional conventional times of that society and that legal system adopted/engrafted to our society during the British Rule, those legal principles have continued to rule roost, even after we were liberated and attained independence and after our country adopted the Constitution and has become a socialistic democratic republic such conventional legal principles evolved in the context of conventional adversary British legal system being applied for decision making process while exercising the constitutional jurisdiction for examination of writ petitions filed/presented before the High Courts invoking Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is nothing short of rendering disservice to our constitutional scheme of governance and for development of law as envisaged under our Constitution. While the Constitution protects/guarantees certain rights particularly, such rights as are recognized as fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India and even such rights are made subject to regulatory provisions and no right can be claimed as an absolute right by any citizen, the regulatory provisions curtailing a right are always examined on the touchstone of the need or necessity to impose such restrictions or perhaps based on the large aspect of public interest as reasonable restriction. The large concept of public interest is the common thread which runs through the entire scheme of an Constitution and the Constitution proclaims that the object of the Constitution is to provide such a system of governance to ensure that an egalitarian society is brought into existence and with the State enjoined upon meeting the needs and requirement of members of Society, should ensure a socialistic pattern of governance is put in place, but depriving even the meager possessions of individuals undoubtedly runs counter to the scheme of Constitution, but even such deprivations are sought to be sustained on the premise that the individual or private interest has to sub-serve or yield to the welfare of larger number, in public interest. 42. When examined in this background the principles as had been evolved in the context of conventional adversary English legal system ill fits into the examination of matters in writ jurisdiction on the touchstone of the constitutional provisions and in the background of the scheme of our Constitution, the principles of res judicata and plea of estoppel as had been evolved in the context of adversary litigation in a lis between one individual and another individual and principles involved in examining cases arising in such formal litigation cannot automatically be incorporated into writ litigation which is not adversary in nature but is in the nature of judicial review of administrative functioning of public authorities, on the touchstone of, governing laws and the Constitution. At any rate, the principle of res judicata can never be called in aid to sustain an earlier decision which was brought about by playing fraud and deception and to putforth that as a defence to prevent the present examination on the premise that it is nothing short of second examination by the Court and is hit by the principle of res judicata is not a submission that can be accepted. 43. 43. An arbitrary and illegal action by public authority is an affront to public interest; is an injury caused to the public at large and to the Society itself. Just because the matter had reached this Court once earlier and this Court overlooked or did not pass an adverse order does not mean that the matter had attained finality to sustain all such illegal actions on the part of the public authorities and the public officials and more so, when the statutory power is misused and abused for conferring state largess on un-deserving persons who had indulged in fraud and deception. In such a situation, public interest and the Society is the victim and if a matter of this nature even assuming it is in the second round of writ litigation is brought to the notice of this Court, it is the duty of this Court to examine the matter in detail, when prima facie there appears some suppression had taken place and some material had been withheld from the scrutiny of this Court and when the respondent-State Government had not acted with bona fides or had not placed the correct facts/picture and the relevant material before the Court. 44. 44. While the writ petitioners who have survived after the others amongst the original 16 petitioners is only 4 in number, while the rest 12 petitioners amongst the total 16 petitioners who had approached the Court have got their petitions dismissed after entering into private settlement with the respondents, that in itself reveals the manner of functioning of the Society, particularly, as the defence taken in respect of the present surviving 4 petitioners and others who withdrew their petition is not any different and the present writ petitioners have survived, even while the defence as putforth now was the common defence put forth in respect of other petitioners whose petitions were dismissed as having been settled out of Court, were petitioners, who had approached this Court belatedly and when delay and laches is a common defence in respect of all 16 petitioners, the very fact that the Society enters into a compromise with as many as 12 other petitioners and is not very assertive of its very defence before the Court and wants to ensure that the proceedings come to an end as quickly as possible and thereby this Court comes to know as less as possible of the Society’s manner of conduct and about the manner of its functioning! 45. Be that as it many, with the petitioners asserting that they are still in possession of the lands in question and to counter this submission the material placed before this Court by the State Government in the form of Annexures R1 to R6, it is worthwhile to examine the quality of the material i.e. placed before the Court to support the claim of the respondent-State Government to say that the State had taken possession of the subject lands from the petitioners also. A presumption in terms of the Gazette publication under sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act will undoubtedly arise, provided possession in fact had been taken and if a dispute arose at a later point of time as to the factum of possession having been taken or otherwise. A presumption in terms of the Gazette publication under sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act will undoubtedly arise, provided possession in fact had been taken and if a dispute arose at a later point of time as to the factum of possession having been taken or otherwise. But if possession in a manner known to law had never been taken, a mere publication of the gazette notification in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act in itself, cannot provide a presumption in favour of a non-existing taking over of possession of a land and particularly, as the government records and the acquisition records have never revealed the actual/factual, physical taking of possession of land in a manner known to law. 46. A chain of lies are sought to be projected as though it is the truth, which is because it has passed the process of gazette publication and this becomes obvious when the contents of the gazette publication of official memorandum dated 18.11.1992, when it is examined in the light of the provisions of Section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act. 47. The mode of taking over of possession of the land by the acquiring authority that too physical possession of the land, should be taken on the spot and not by endorsement made in the office of the land acquisition officer or any other revenue official or even by a Magistrate in terms of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act are to be followed when the acquiring authority finds any resistance for taking over of the physical possession in respect of which awards have been passed and the award amount disbursed to the land owners and thereafter when the land owners decline to part possession of the land, after such resistance is noticed, it is the acquiring authority who notifies the Magistrate having jurisdiction to provide sustenance or support to take over possession by using force if warranted and the factual taking over of possession of such lands by the Magistrate should again be evidenced by a mahazar drawn on the spot and with the signatures of the witnesses witnessing the evidence. Thereafter the Magistrate in turn has to hand over physical possession to the acquiring authority and that again has to take place on the land and not at the office of the Magistrate or the acquisition officer. 48. Thereafter the Magistrate in turn has to hand over physical possession to the acquiring authority and that again has to take place on the land and not at the office of the Magistrate or the acquisition officer. 48. A perusal of the Official Memorandum dated 18.11.1992 indicates that while the Magistrate has acted on the communication of the Land Acquisition Officer, etc., there is nothing on record to support that by use of physical power or force the physical possession of subject lands is taken over by the Tahsildar in question, but the endorsement simply recites that the Tahsildar in turn has handed over possession etc. Until and unless the Tahsildar in the first instance, assuming that he is acting as a Taluka Magistrate, visits the spot, removes the obstructions and takes physical possession of the land and leaves his mark on the land and the factum and the entire event is evidenced on the Mahazar and in turn transfers the physical possession in favour of the acquiring authority, the process of taking possession is not achieved and even in the absence of any material to indicate that such development on the land had taken place, only by the Annexures placed before the Court particularly. Annexure-R3 read with the official memorandum which only shows that they are all prepared at the office of the acquisition officer or the Magistrate and nothing actually has happened on the land, no presumption arises nor inferred. 49. If such process or presumption is to be simply inferred merely on the basis of the gazette publication, it is not even worth its value on the printed format, leave alone for eliciting presumption of sub-section (2) of section 16 of the Act. What has not happened actually on the land cannot be achieved by issue of a gazette publication under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act and to accept the mere publication of the gazette notification under section 16[2] of the Act, in spite of the original records of the acquiring authority indicating to the contrary as conclusive proof, is nothing short of the State also playing the act of deception and trying to mislead this Court about not only the factual position, but also the legal position in law. 50. 50. There is no presumption in favour of the respondent-State to have taken over possession notwithstanding the gazette publication placed at Annexures R1 and R2 for the sake of such presumption and to claim that it should be taken as conclusive proof of the State having taken possession of the land etc. The argument miserably fails and it has to be held without any doubt or ambiguity that there is nothing at all in law to presume that the subject lands are in the possession of the State Government through the power in terms of provisions of Section 47 of the Act and in turn handed over to the Society etc. The whole thing is nothing short of an utter farce. It is rather unfortunate that the officials of the State Government without any compunction and without any sincerity or commitment to do their official duties, are swearing to affidavits placed before the Court in proceedings pending before the Court, to mislead the Court, distort the factual version and such affidavits are sworn to in a very casual manner even without much thought to the implications that will arise in law. Swearing to a false affidavit is not only nothing short of perjury committed by a public servant, but also a contemptuous act before the Court. Such conduct on the part of the officials of the Karnataka Government has invited adverse comments even by the Supreme Court and it appears even thereafter the officials of the Karnataka Government have not corrected themselves, but to save a day, are prepared to do the impermissible act as is done in the present case, asserting on behalf of the State Government that respondents had taken over possession of subject lands in terms of the evidence which is nothing short of perjury or a false affidavit being sworn to assert a factual position which has never been taken place as per law. An inference that possession has in fact been taken is sought to be asserted, claiming such possession is taken is putforth only to defend the present writ litigation and not really based on the record. 51. Though Sri. An inference that possession has in fact been taken is sought to be asserted, claiming such possession is taken is putforth only to defend the present writ litigation and not really based on the record. 51. Though Sri. Omkumar, learned AGA has vehemently contended that the present official, who has sworn to the affidavit was not the one who had conducted the proceedings and he is not conversant with the facts and an affidavit is sworn to only on the basis of records available and calling in aid the statutory provisions, it does not merit acceptance for the simple reason that the record is bereft of material to indicate that physical possession of the subject lands had in fact been taken by any official, whether by the Magistrate or Land Acquisition Officer and in turn has handed over possession to the Society. In the absence of any cogent material on record, if an affidavit is sworn to and the record discloses that physical possession had not been taken, it is nothing short of asserting the incorrect factual position and an assertion of a falsehood or a lie, as true on oath! 52. In this context Mr. Omkumar, learned AGA has drawn my attention to paragraph 5 of the Statement of objections dated 20.1.2011 filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and affirmed on oath by the supporting affidavit of Mr. Venkatesh Murthy. Paragraph 5 reads as under:- “5. It is further submitted that considering the fact that certain land owners have entered into compromise and that Section 16(2) Notification has already been issued, this Hon’ble Court allowed Writ Petition No.26857/2007 filed by the Respondent-Society and directed the State Government to hand over possession of land bearing Sy.Nos.2, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106 and 111 totally measuring 19.24 acres. In this, the land bearing Sy.No.100 pertains to Petitioner No.16. It is submitted that these 19.24 acres of land has been taken possession by the State Government vide Notification No.LAQ/HBCS/8.87-88 dated 1.3.2005 issued under Section 16(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is further submitted that in terms of the compromise petition mentioned above, this Hon’ble Court also disposed of Writ Petition No.5816/2006 and W.P.No.9412/2007 recording the compromise memo only with regard to the petitioners other than Petitioner Nos.2, 10, 13 & 16.” 53. It is further submitted that in terms of the compromise petition mentioned above, this Hon’ble Court also disposed of Writ Petition No.5816/2006 and W.P.No.9412/2007 recording the compromise memo only with regard to the petitioners other than Petitioner Nos.2, 10, 13 & 16.” 53. That the assertion with regard to taking of possession of the subject lands was based only on the contents of the gazette publication and that it is not in fact supported by any commensurate material available in the records, particularly, to show the factual physical taking over of possession of the lands by either the Magistrate or the Land Acquisition Officer nor is there any corresponding material in the acquisition records to show that the lands in turn has been physically handed over to the officials of the respondent-Society. But the entire basis of the contents of paragraph 5 for asserting the factum of taking possession by the State Government in respect of the subject lands is only the gazette publication and relying upon the presumption available in law in terms of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act. Learned AGA points out that the assertion in the statement is that possession in fact has been taken and the affidavit being supported by the concerned official now working in the particular section of the Land Acquisition Officer connected therewith and who has perused the records was only based on the gazette publication and nothing else and the meaning and contents of paragraph 5 of the statement of objections does not necessarily mean that either the Magistrate or the Land Acquisition Officer has in fact taken possession of the subject lands to amount that in fact such possession has been taken itself is an incorrect or false statement on oath resulting in further legal consequences etc. 54. Mr. 54. Mr. A.S. Mahesha, learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand, by drawing the attention of the Court to Annexure-G to the writ petition, which is a copy of the letter dated 16.07.2007 originating from the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government, addressed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore and under the signature of the concerned officer who has sworn to the affidavit to submit that the contents of the very letter also is only an assertion of the fact that possession of an extent of 19.24 acres of land in different survey numbers of Nelakadaranahalli Village had been taken over by the Government in the context of acquisition proceedings in favour of the respondent-Society and in response to a request of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and in turn to hand over possession of the subject lands to the Land Acquisition Officer, who can thereafter put the Society in possession of the subject land and then even the letter dated 16.7.2007 is in this manner an affidavit affirming on oath supporting the statement of objections at paragraph 5 being in consonance, if in fact there is no record to indicate that physical possession of the subject lands had been taken over either by the Magistrate or the Revenue Officials from the land owners, the assertion of taking possession of the lands from the land owners either by force or otherwise, is nothing short of an incorrect statement of fact and the entire proceedings are built up on such misleading statements made before the Court even on oath and even supported by affidavit sworn to by the concerned official and while the acquisition proceedings are vitiated because of the lands having remained in possession of the land owners, commensurate action is also warranted against such official who have been sworn to false and incorrect affidavit, if any, on record to either solemnity of the proceedings before the Court or should have a commitment to speak the truth and not falsehood when he is swearing to an affidavit on oath. 55. However, Mr. 55. However, Mr. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate, has drawn my attention to the acquisition records containing some material to indicate that the surveyor by name S N Krishna Murthy attached to the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Sub-Division, Bangalore, had, in fact, taken possession of the different extents of agricultural lands on 11.6.1992 as evidenced in page 359 of the records an extent of 1 acre 31 guntas in Sy.No.109 of Nelakadirenahalli Village had been taken possession and mahazar has been drawn on that day in the presence of five witnesses and an irrevocable general power of attorney said to have been executed by Narayanaswamy-land owner for himself and on behalf of his wife and children including minor children as guardian is also available at pages 360 to 367 of the record and a further record to evidence handing over of possession of an extent of 1 acre 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.111 of Nelakadirenahalli Village by owner of the land in favour of the surveyor S N Krishnamurthy and the acknowledgement of the surveyor for taking possession is found at page 368 though this is not one relating to Sy.No.109 and a like record for the mahazar drawn on the spot for this particular extent of 1 acre 16 guntas in Sy.No.111 is to be found at page 370, sketch of the same at page 371 of the record and at pages 372 to 374, power of attorney executed by the owner and sketch at page 375 and the surveyor taking possession on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer at page 358 are all available and therefore it is not as though the gazette publication is not based on any material on record etc. 56. A perusal of the record placed before the court while does indicate that a material is found to evidence handing over of some parcels of lands by the owners, in the first instance, in favour of the surveyor and the surveyor accepting the same for taking possession on behalf of the State Government, they are all if at all records to evidence a voluntary surrender of land and not in respect of any land for which the material relating to the gazette publication is relied upon nor the correspondence between the acquiring authority and the Magistrate nor even with reference to Annexure-G communication. 57. 57. It is also of some significance to notice that even when record relating to taking possession of small bits and parcels of land either at Nelakadirenahalli or J B Kaval that happened in the year 1982, there is no corresponding record for hading over possession of the same extent in favour of the society in the present record and if at all as per Annexure-G permission is conveyed from the Government in favour of the Special Land Acquisition Officer for handing over the extent of 19 acres etc. to the society there is no report/intimation to the Government but a report or intimation for having handed over the said extent of land to the society, is also conspicuously absent in the records. 58. Be that as it may, even a cursory glance at the documents such as mahazar purported to have been drawn in terms of section 16 of the Act under the supervision of the surveyor Mr. S N Krishnamurthy and all dated 2.6.1992, a copy of power of attorney on the strength of which the surveyor has taken possession from the land owners and a copy of the possession certificate purporting to evidence handing over of possession by the land owner to the Special Land Acquisition Officer through the surveyor S N Krishnamurthy [supradipatra], are all documents which are stereotype and not necessarily documents which are drawn on the spot i.e., at the location of the land but are documents prepared at the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The fact that it is so prepared in the office is obvious, as they are all almost identical and bear the same date irrespective of the location of the land and the village and many signatures contained in these documents whether of the land owners or of the witnesses are either repeated or alike! So much for the so called record of the land acquisition proceedings to evidence taking over of possession by the surveyor on behalf of the special land acquisition officer that too because owners are voluntarily surrendering possession, but thereafter there being no record to support that in all these lands which in fact is claimed had been handed over by the special land acquisition officer in favour of the society. 59. 59. The preliminary notification for the purpose of acquiring the land for the benefit of the society was issued by the State Government way back on 22.11.1988. If the version of the learned Additional Government Advocate is to be accepted, handing over of possession of the subject land is being continued as late as 13.7.2010 in terms of the facts and figures given in the tabulated column filed along with the memo dated 14.2.2011. 60. Though Sri. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that some properties had been handed over to the possession of the society even on 13.11.1992 and 20.1.1993, while it is possible that some of such records may be available and having a link with the gazette publications produced as Annexures-R1 & R2 and to the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, that again if at all is possible only in terms of the records, but indicate some parcels of land had been voluntarily surrendered by the land owners and by the person who was holding the general power of attorney and it is a matter of utmost irony that the middleman who was acting on behalf of the society for getting the land notified for acquisition was also doubling up as a person holding power of attorney from the owners of the land! In this background the statement of former Secretary/Official of the society before the authorized officer of G V K Rao Committee which was enquiring into the manner of functioning of the societies and the societies engaging middlemen for getting hold of lands utilizing the services of the State Government by getting lands notified under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the benefits of the society only indicates that the activities of the present respondent-society is fully a situation squarely attracting the ruling of division Bench of this court in the case of ‘NARAYANA REDDY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA’ reported in ILR 1991 KAR 2248 and as affirmed by the Supreme Court in HMT’s case [supra]. 61. 61. While it is not necessary for this order to be burdened with authorities as the principle that fraud vitiates any proceedings including proceedings in the nature of land acquisition proceedings if the purpose and object of availing or exercising statutory powers is because of some considerations or reasons other than for acting in the public interest and for conferring benefits on a private society which has virtually indulged in fraud and deception, not only duped its own members from whom it had extracted large amounts by assuring them to provide sites etc., but also by using undue influence to prevail upon the officials of the State Government to misuse the statutory powers under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring private lands purporting to be in the name of public interest and for the benefit of the society, and in this state of affairs such proceedings can never pass muster nor this court can overlook misuse or abuse of statutory powers by public and statutory authorities in such a blatant manner and to the detriment of persons like the petitioners. 62. While on this aspect, Sri. Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for the society would defend the acquisition proceedings in favour of the society and has placed before the court plethora of decisions and Judgments of not only of our High Court but also of the Supreme Court, as under. [1] KARNATAKA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA LIMITED, PEENYA, BANGALORE vs. KARITHIMMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in 2002 [1] KLJ 469 [DB] [2] K D SHARMA vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., & OTHERS reported in JT 2008 [8] SC 57. [3] THE TRINITY HOUSE BUILDING CO.OP SOCIETY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS passed in W.A. Nos.7543-57/1996 disposed of on 6.5.2004 by this court. [4] M K THYAGARAJA GUPTA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS passed in WP No.10843 of 2008 disposed of on 23.6.2010 by this court. [5] MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY vs. THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS reported in 1996 AIR SCW 3871. [6] RELIANCE PETROLEUM LTD., vs. ZAVER CHAND POPATMAL SUMARIA AND OTHERS reported in [1996] 4 SCC 579. [5] MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY vs. THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS reported in 1996 AIR SCW 3871. [6] RELIANCE PETROLEUM LTD., vs. ZAVER CHAND POPATMAL SUMARIA AND OTHERS reported in [1996] 4 SCC 579. [7] LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD vs. STATE OF GUJRAT AND OTHERS reported in [1998] 4 SCC 387 [8] STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS vs D R LAXMI AND OTHERS reported in [1996] 6 SCC 445 [9] RAMNIKILAL N BHUTTA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1997 SC 1236 [10] M/s. A P STEEL RE-ROLLING MILL LTD vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2007 SC 797 [11] SWAIKA PROPERTIES [P] LTD., AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS reported in [2008] 4 SCC 695 [12] STATE GOVT. HOUSELESS HARIJAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in [2000] 8 SCALE 281 [13] OMPRAKASH VERMA vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in 2010 AIR SCW 7196 [14] TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, CHENNAI vs. M MEIYAPPAN AND ORS reported in 2010 AIR SCW 7130. 63. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the decisions of our High Court in NARAYANA REDDY’s case [supra] and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of HMT case [supra] and Mr. 63. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the decisions of our High Court in NARAYANA REDDY’s case [supra] and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of HMT case [supra] and Mr. Vinod Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of VYALIKAVAL HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP SOCIETY vs. V CHANDRAPPA reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1164 to submit that acquisition proceedings will be vitiated, due to malafides and the purpose of acquisition if is really not public purpose, it matters very little as to whether person seeking relief for quashing the acquisition proceedings approaches the court with any delay and delay and laches cannot come in the way of such persons seeking relief before the court and submits that the present is a case where the proceedings are vitiated not merely by malafides of acquiring authorities but also because of the fraud and deception being played by the society and in such a situation irrespective of the fact that any extent of land had been taken possession of or handed over whether by voluntary surrender or creation of record to that effect cannot sustain, as the entire acquisition proceedings get vitiated by misuse, malafide exercise of statutory powers and to confer benefit in favour of a fraudulent society. 64. While the factual and legal position clearly points out to invalidate the acquisition proceedings by issue of a writ or certiorari, the question as to whether any extent of acquisition proceedings can be sustained, particularly, as the number of petitioners who have remained in the proceedings are only four and total extent of land in which they are interested being not more than 4 acres 12 guntas in three or four survey numbers of Nelakadirenahalli Village whereas the assertion of the State Government is that they have acquired land in all measuring 57 acres 11 guntas and had passed the Award to this extent and may be the land owners are also paid compensation etc., and therefore the acquisition proceedings to this extent should be sustained etc. 65. 65. I have bestowed my attention and examined the question as to whether the petitioners’ interest alone can be subject matter of scrutiny for the purpose of disposing this writ petition or does it go beyond, in the background of many of the land owners having already settled the matter with the society etc. 66. While settlement amongst the litigating parties is perhaps the best mode of resolution of any dispute and that should be attempted in every case of adversary litigation as reconciliation and settlement by the parties between themselves or amongst themselves is always the best mode of resolution and can bring an expeditious end to litigation and there is nothing wrong in attempting an amicable settlement even in the context of public law litigation and matters coming up before the court for scrutiny and examination in the context of administration of public laws the larger question that if all laws are made for the common good or public good and for the benefit of the society and laws should be worked in a proper manner, should be implemented, enforced only as made by the legislature and ensuring that the public authorities and statutory authorities function within the limits and bounds of the statutory provisions is always in the larger public interest and a deviation from his adherence when statutory powers are misused, abused by statutory authorities, when malafide action is put in place in the name of exercise of statutory powers, when same persons are sought to be conferred, favours or benefits a few or one person at the cost of some other citizens i.e., when statutory powers are misused or abused, victim is the larger public interest and the entire society and not merely the persons who are complaining them are affected by the impugned action. It may be incidental that the complaining persons are affected. But, the scrutiny in the background of adversary conventional litigation ends with that. An examination of a matter before the court, particularly, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, by judicial review of administrative action or the statutory exercise of powers is an examination in rem and not an examination in personam. But, the scrutiny in the background of adversary conventional litigation ends with that. An examination of a matter before the court, particularly, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, by judicial review of administrative action or the statutory exercise of powers is an examination in rem and not an examination in personam. The action taken by the statutory authorities as in the case of a proceedings for acquisition of land, whether it is for the benefit of a private co-operative society like the respondent-society or for any other larger industrial purpose or for providing a public facility such as formation of a road or construction of a common facility to the society like providing civic amenities or even for construction of a reservoir resulting in large extents of private lands getting submerged, are all sustained because the purpose is a public purpose and not for the benefit of a private person. But, in the present case, the acquisition in favour of the society is sought to be sustained as for public purpose because the society claims to be a co-operative society meant for catering to the needs and requirements of its members to provide residential accommodation to its otherwise impoverished members starving for accommodation and who are unable to meet the high cost of house sites because of market value when is sought to be acquired by private negotiation or from land owners directly. 67. It is an irony and a paradox in our system that even when the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, speaks of compensation to be paid to the land owners at market value, it seldom happens that the land owners receive a fair market value by way of compensation, but only a small fraction of the market value which the land otherwise command and while the land owners are left high and dry, persons like private societies for whose benefit such lands are acquired at the cost of the land owners stand to make profit or if it can be described in a casual business like transaction make a kill! In fact, that is the incentive for private societies and such societies seek aid of the State Government to acquire lands for their benefit and hand over of the same to the society so that it can indulge in transactions in the nature of estate developer etc. 68. In fact, that is the incentive for private societies and such societies seek aid of the State Government to acquire lands for their benefit and hand over of the same to the society so that it can indulge in transactions in the nature of estate developer etc. 68. Be that as it may, while such is the situation and when state power is exercised for conferring benefits on the society and if the society is genuine and in fact has also been distributing lands handed over to its possession for the benefit of its members then perhaps that passes muster and acquisition proceedings can also be sustained. 69. Unfortunately, in the present case, the society has not come forward to place any material before the court to indicate that it has distributed sites in favour of its members and at a reasonable cost and that the members in turn have been benefited by constructing houses and living there, but such information or material is conspicuous by its absence even when the society is said to be in existence since the year 1975 and it is the claim made by the learned counsel appearing for the society that the society has successfully executed many such schemes and projects and has provided house sites to its members in other areas, but nothing is placed on record to substantiate this stand. 70. When the examination of the present proceedings is in writ jurisdiction and by judicial review of administrative action, the present administrative action is not sustainable in the least, particularly, the acquiring authority and the State Government and its officials having exercised statutory powers in an erratic and arbitrary manner for conferring benefits on a society, though its credentials is at its lowest who have not made good their benefits either before the Committee set up for looking into the conduct or manner of functioning of the society or even before this court by placing any material to indicate its bona fide functioning and serving the purpose for which it is said to have been created or brought into existence. 71. 71. Though it is claimed that some of the land owners have voluntarily surrendered their lands and have also received compensation and to that extent there is no need for disturbing the proceedings at this point of time and in this writ petition, I am unable to accept this submission for the simple reason that the entire acquisition proceedings are, while vitiated by illegalities and fraudulent acts, even the so called surrender by third party negotiation by settlement is only pursuant to the land acquisition proceedings and not by any private negotiation with the society on its own negotiating to purchase the land from the land owners. Such is not the situation of the present case. It is only because statutory powers are exercised for compulsory acquisition of private lands, the land owners are compelled or driven to a corner and coerced into settlement which is nothing short of misuse or abuse of the statutory powers to the detriment of private land owners. When once the State power is exercised for compulsory acquisition of private lands, the defence that some of them are ready and willing to surrender and have in fact received compensation is no good as that can be or could have been achieved independent of the exercise of the statutory powers and therefore all proceedings pursuant to the issue of notifications by the State Government under sections 4 and 6 of the Act and therefore are all required to be quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. 72. Accordingly, the Government Notifications issued under section 4[1] of the Act and finalized under section 6[1] of the Act and all further proceedings in respect of notified lands are all quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. No land remains either in the ownership of the State or in the ownership of the society if such interest in the land was initially attributable or originated from the land acquisition proceedings as when once the entire acquisition proceedings are quashed, all consequential actions also fall to ground. 73. No land remains either in the ownership of the State or in the ownership of the society if such interest in the land was initially attributable or originated from the land acquisition proceedings as when once the entire acquisition proceedings are quashed, all consequential actions also fall to ground. 73. With the manner of functioning of the society having left much to be desired and if such societies are permitted to continue, it can only be to the detriment of the larger public interest and it is therefore that the Registrar General of this court is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Registrar of co-operative societies in Karnataka and with a direction to the said Registrar to hold a proper enquiry into the conduct, manner of functioning of the respondent-society, to ascertain as to whether the funds of the society, particularly, the amount received by way of deposits from its members have been managed properly, as to whether it is available with the society and if members have been provided with commensurate benefits and if not, to ensure that amounts are realized and if there are any errant office bearers, they are all brought to task in accordance with law and if the activities of the society does not inspire the confidence of the Registrar for proper functioning whether earlier or in future, it is high time the society’s existence is brought to scrutiny and the Registrar to act in accordance with the statute for such purpose depending upon the outcome of the enquiry. 74. The State Government is directed to reverse all such actions taken in respect of the acquisition proceedings and ensure that the land owners who are so desirous of retaining their lands are not in any way prevented or affected irrespective of the earlier position and if such land owners have already received compensation, it is for the land owners to restore the same to the concerned revenue authorities or other persons for retaining the land if they so desire. 75. 75. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of such of those land owners who are not willing to take benefit of this order and would rest content to allow the case as has developed upto this stage, but this relaxation will not enable either the State government or the respondent-society to indulge in any pressure tactics on such land owners for achieving other purposes and results not permitted in law! 76. That still leaves this court with the question about the most haphazard, undesirable manner of exercise of statutory powers by the State Government and its officials and the questions that the officials of the State Government had not only misrepresented and suppressed information and material fact from this court once earlier resulting in the Judgment of this court in the case of KARNATAKA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD., VS. KARITHIMMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in 2002 [1] KLJ 469 but have indulged in the same game, yet again while defending the action of the State Government in the present writ petition. 77. It is rather unfortunate that the State Government and its officials have gone about misleading and misrepresenting facts and record before this court even by filing incorrect and false affidavits and have brought about results that were otherwise not possible in law and it only indicates the casual or cavalier manner in which the court proceedings are responded to by the officials of the State Government. To compound the same, they have also indulged in filing incorrect or false affidavit before the court while defending untenable actions on the part of the State Government. 78. While one many appreciate the zealous or spirited defence of action taken and by calling in aid all legal provisions and a possible or plausible legal contention being urged, but to misinform the court, to suppress material information before the court, to withhold factual information and to distort factual position by creating forged documents and by filing false affidavits is nothing short of committing a crime in terms of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. If the Government Officials are indulging in such activities, it is a fit case for initiating proceedings under section 195 of the Indian Penal Code. 79. If the Government Officials are indulging in such activities, it is a fit case for initiating proceedings under section 195 of the Indian Penal Code. 79. Faced in the wake of such developments in the present case, the learned Additional Government Advocate who had made a passionate plea earlier to submit that the concerned officials in the case i.e., the Under Secretary had sworn to the affidavit just to place factual position before the court as culled out from the record and not for any other purpose, has later on sought permission of the court to place a clarifying affidavit of the very official. 80. While the affidavit placed on record even with clarification sought to be given today in the form of a further affidavit of the same official does not inspire confidence of this court that nay attempt had been made to place only the correct facts and not anything else, the fact that the official was the one who was acting in the very capacity even way back in the year 2007 when communication at annexure-G had originated from the Principal Secretary to the Department of Revenue, Government of Karnataka addressed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer it is a circumstance clearly indicating that the official is not novice to the game; that he has been in thick of the proceedings for the past more than four years; that it is not as though the official is in the particular department just a couple of days earlier and therefore was not either very conversant or did not have time to make himself conversant with the facts etc. 81. The attempt appears to be, only either to project an impression or factual position to stall further enquiry by this court in respect of the record or other legal aspects in the wake of the earlier Judgment of this court in the case of KARNATAKA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA LTD., VS. 81. The attempt appears to be, only either to project an impression or factual position to stall further enquiry by this court in respect of the record or other legal aspects in the wake of the earlier Judgment of this court in the case of KARNATAKA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA LTD., VS. KARITHIMMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in 2002 [1] KLJ 469, but unfortunately, that has not happened in the present case, particularly, as I have fond that the principles of res judicata, estoppelwhich were all called in aid to urge that a different order other than what was passed by this court earlier in the said case is not at all possible, as it is found that such principles has not merited acceptance not only in the wake of the fraudulent activities that was indulged in by the society and which has been very cleverly suppressed from the scrutiny of the enquiry committee and also of this court earlier but even by misrepresentation have all been exposed during the course of examination of this writ petition and such defences have fallen to ground on factual and legal examination and the entire proceedings having been found to be vitiated. 82. The legal principles urged also being not very germane or relevant in the context of the examination of the present writ petition within the scope of judicial review of administrative action and therefore also further scrutiny being no bar, particularly, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the legal principles as had been evolved in the context of conventional adversary legal system does not necessarily fit into the examination by this court while exercising judicial review of administrative and statutory action by public authorities under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and therefore also the legal principles as pointed out by the learned Additional Government Advocate are of no consequence for the present examination and therefore the present examination undertaken notwithstanding the preliminary objections raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned counsel appearing for the society. 83. 83. It is not very necessary for this court at this stage to go into further effect of the clarifying affidavit filed by the Under Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, as it is found that the affidavits are not very truthful to the fact situation as it has emerged from the records and as even the record themselves are suspect, particularly, the quality and nature of mahazars drawn by the survey officer on behalf of the special land acquisition officer etc., and as to whether such records are really the one’s, evidencing any spot mahazar on the land or merely drawn in the office of the special land acquisition officer in which case it is nothing short of fabricating the document which again is an act attracting the provisions of section 192 of the Indian Penal code and all such matters are required to be examined with a little more detail if not for anything at least to send a message to the officials of the State Government that when they are before the court and in response to the proceedings going on in the court, they should act in a bona fide, truthful, law conforming manner and not try to take the court proceedings lightly and casually and even try to take Judges for a ride and such tendencies on the part of the officials of the State Government is highly deprecated and it is not the first time the officials of the State government have received such rebukes from the Supreme Court. It is only expected that they learn their lessons and start functioning a bona fide, law conforming manner in the larger public interest and to ensure protection and safety of the citizens of the State. 84. It is with such hope this order has to end, but with necessary directions to the Registrar General of this court to initiate action in terms of the provisions of section 195 of the Indian Penal Code and also provisions of section 192 of the Indian Penal Code by ensuring that necessary complaints are registered before the Jurisdictional Magistrate in accordance with law. If at all, clarifying affidavit may be made part of the record and it can be used by the deponent for whatever it is worth at the relevant stage etc. 85. If at all, clarifying affidavit may be made part of the record and it can be used by the deponent for whatever it is worth at the relevant stage etc. 85. While giving false evidence by swearing to a false affidavit before the court in a proceedings before the court and any attempt to fabricate false evidence and create documents are offences independently under the Indian Penal Code, it also gives rise to a cause of action in contempt jurisdiction and therefore the Registrar General of this court is directed to cause contempt notice to be issued to Mr. Venkatesh Murthy, Under Secretary who has acted on behalf of the State Government, who has filed affidavit and had further followed up the matter and if there are other officers who are also responsible for causing the present affidavit, to initiate such contempt action against them also after ascertaining their name, designation and the role played by them in the context of the court proceedings. 86. Writ petition is allowed levying exemplary cost of the State Government, quantified at `10,000/- in favour of each of the petitioner. 87. Cost to be deposited in this court within four weeks from today and each of the petitioner is permitted to draw the amount through their respective counsel. 88. However, if the cost is not deposited, the registry is directed to issue certificate in favour of each of the petitioner to recover the same as though it is decree passed by the civil court. 89. The Government records are retained by the court to be in the custody of the Registrar General till such time certified copy of the order is released in favour of the parties.