Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 28189 OF 2014 (CC NO.2940 OF 2014)

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO…28195-96  OF 2014 (CC NO.1707 OF 2014)

RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION .... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.     .....  RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1. Delay condoned.  Heard on merits.

2. These  petitions  have  been  preferred  against  the  

Judgment and Order dated 27th September, 2013 passed in  

LPA No.1687 of 2013,  Order dated 16th September, 2013

Page 2

SLP (C) No……./2014 [CC No.2940/2014]

passed  in  LPA  No.1618  of  2013  and  Order  dated  16th  

December,  2013 passed in RA LP No.133 of  2013 in LPA  

No.1618 of 2013 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana  

at  Chandigarh,  upholding the order  of  the learned Single  

Judge,  declining  to  interfere  with  the  Order  of  the  

Government  of  Haryana  dated   

18th September, 1998, resuming land measuring 76 acres 5  

kanals and 5 marlas, except land measuring 7 acres left to  

be retained by the petitioner foundation.

3. The case of the petitioner is that it gave a proposal on  

1st April, 1972 to start a educational complex for the benefit  

of the residents of the State of Haryana.   Accordingly, the  

State  of  Haryana  released   

76 acres of land from the Forest Department and acquired  

the  same  under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  vide  

notifications  dated   

15th May, 1972 and 28th August, 1972 under Sections 4 and  

6 respectively.   Award for compensation was given on 21st  

February, 1973.  Possession was delivered to the petitioner  

on 24th January, 1974 subject to certain conditions including  

the  requirement  to  make construction  within  the specific  

time.  Since the land was not utilized as expected, in terms  

of  agreement dated 18th February,  1988 under which the  

2

Page 3

SLP (C) No……./2014 [CC No.2940/2014]

land  was  given  to  the  petitioner  subject  to  certain  

conditions, the Village Panchayat sought return of the land  

by passing a resolution dated 20th October, 1989.   On that  

basis,  after  due  enquiry,  resumption  Order  dated  18th  

September,  1998 came to be finally passed after  various  

proceedings holding that the petitioner failed to comply with  

the conditions subject to which land was given to it.   It was  

held  that  the  petitioner  failed  to  utilize  the  land  for  the  

purpose for which it was given, except a part of it.  

4. The  petitioner  called  in  question  the  said  order  by  

filing  a  writ  petition.   Learned  single  Judge,  after  due  

consideration,  did  not  find  any  merit  in  the  contentions  

raised on behalf of the petitioner.  It was observed :

“It  is  appropriate to notice that actual running of   the  school  was  the  primary  consideration  of  the  State of Haryana in allotting 76 acres of land to the   foundation.  The petitioners have not produced any   documents in regard to admission of children, the   year  in  which  the  admissions  were  started,  the   classes  in  which  the  admissions  were  made,  the   number of children admitted in a particular class,   the  number  of  faculty  members,  their  date  of   appointment, qualifications etc. and above all  the   performance of the school children in academics or   extracurricular activities.  It is also doubtful if the   school  had  been  affiliated  with  any  educational   board.   I  have  no  hesitation  to  hold  that  the  petitioners  have  intentionally  withheld  this   information as revelation thereof would completely   shake  their  tall  claim  to  start  an  educational   institutions, one of the best in the area to impart   quality education.  

3

Page 4

SLP (C) No……./2014 [CC No.2940/2014]

Admittedly,  the  petitioners  did  not  start   construction of stated third phase by the time, they   filed  the  petition.   The  joint  inspection  was  conducted  in  October/November  1997.   A  Local   Commissioner  was  appointed  by  this  Court  in   August  1999.   Shri  Sanjeev  Sharma,  Local   Commissioner inspected the site in the presence of   the  petitioners  and  made  a  detailed  report  in   compliance  with  order  dated  16.08.1999.   The  petitioners have not challenged the correctness of   this  report  with  regard to  extent  of  construction.   The  joint  inspection,  in  no  circumstances,  could   reveal something more than what is contained in   the report of the Local Commissioner.  Under these   circumstances,  the  supply  or  non-supply  of  joint   inspection  report  also  loses  its  significance.   In   other words, no prejudice has been caused to the   petitioners  for  want  of  supply  of  joint  inspection   report.

The petitioners have tried to justify their failure to   complete  the project  for  want  of  adequate funds   due to financial difficulties of their funding sources.   The  possession  of  land  was  delivered  in  January   1974.  The foundation should have shown keenness  to complete the project at the earliest.  It remained   silent  for  12  years.   Thereafter  also,  it  did  not   complete the project within three years of entering   into  agreement  in  February  1988.   The  plea  of   inadequacy of funds more than 25 years after their   approaching the State of Haryana for allotment of   land cannot  hold  ground.   Rather  the  foundation  should have, on its own, surrendered the land to   the State of Haryana if it was not able to complete   the project due to inadequacy of funds. ……………

The State of Haryana acquired more than 76 acres   of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat, Village  Bari.   The  Gram  Panchayat’s  land  necessarily   denotes land meant for  common purposes of  the   village.   The  people  of  the  village  have  been  deprived of the benefits of this common land due to  a false promise made by the foundation.   As the  foundation utterly failed to achieve the object for   which the Gram Panchayat was deprived of land of   its ownership, no fault can be found in the decision   of the State Government.  Rather, the officer who  passed the impugned order has taken a very liberal   

4

Page 5

SLP (C) No……./2014 [CC No.2940/2014]

and reasonable view of the matter and left 7 acres   of  land at the disposal  of  foundation,  though the   entire  land  could  be  resumed.   In  view  of  the   above,  the  contention  of  the  petitioners  that  the   impugned  order  is  vitiated  for  want  of  supply  of   documents,  joint  inspection  report  or  an   opportunity of personal hearing is devoid of merit   and  is  accordingly  rejected.   Similarly,  the  other  plea that resumption order could not be passed in   the circumstances of the present case is untenable.

Before parting with this order, it is appropriate to   mention that the land resumed by the impugned  order has been re-vested in the Gram Panchayat.  A   mutation  has  been  sanctioned  in  favour  of  the  Gram  Panchayat,  which  has  been  challenged  in   CWP No.13676 of 2007.  The land after resumption   would now be available for common benefit of the   villagers.

As an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove,   the  foundation  is  guilty  of  using  the  land  for   personal  gain,  failed  to  complete  construction  in   compliance  with  terms  and  conditions  of  the  agreement even uptill  1999 and further defaulted  in proving true to its promise/representation made  to the State as back as in the year 1972,  rather   deprived the villagers of huge land meant for their   common  benefits,  therefore,  in  my  considered   opinion,  allowing  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners   would amount to putting premium on their failures.   The petitioners, therefore, cannot be held entitled   to relief in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226   of the Constitution of India.”

5. The  Division  Bench  after  thorough  consideration  

reiterated the above findings as follows :

“19. Thus,  from the reading of  the said affidavit   also, which had been filed on 26.08.2012, nothing  has been brought on record to show that any such  utilization has been done regarding the setting up  of  an  educational  complex.   The  affidavit  only   pertains  to  the  efforts  made  regarding  the  administration  of  the  school  and  does  not  talk   about utilization of the huge chunk of land for any   further expansion for the purpose of setting  of an   

5

Page 6

SLP (C) No……./2014 [CC No.2940/2014]

educational complex.  The site plan which has been  attached  alongwith  the  said  affidavit  goes  on  to   show that there is a proposed boys and girls hostel   to  be  set  up,  a  proposed  Apollo  Institute  of   Management and Studies.  Thus, the submission of   the counsel for the appellants that in pursuance of   the  interim  order  passed,  the  Foundation  had  complied with the terms of  the allotment,  is  also   without any basis.  The observations of the Learned   Single Judge that the objects for which the land was  acquired  were  not  met  and the  Gram Panchayat   was  deprived  of  its  ownership  due  to  the  false   promise  made  by  the  Foundation  for  brining  education to the residents of the State of Haryana,   are absolutely justified.

20. Another  factor  which  is  to  be  taken  into   consideration  is  that  in  pursuance  of  the   resumption,  the  Gram  Panchayat  had  also  submitted  a  bank  draft  of  2,76,548/-  vide  letter   dated 16.10.1998,  regarding the cost of  the land  which  had  been  resumed  and  in  pursuance  of   which, mutation had also been entered in favour of   the Gram Panchayat.  As per the written statement   of  respondent  No.5  –  Gram  Panchayat,  the  said  amount had been accepted by the appellants and  they had taken possession.  No replication to the  written statement, filed by respondent No.5 – Gram  Panchayat, was filed and thus, the Trust has also   retained the said amount for all this period.

21. Accordingly, there is no infirmity or illegality   in the order of the Learned Single Judge, upholding   the resumption, which would warrant interference   in  appeal.   The  present  appeal  is,  accordingly,   dismissed in limine.”

6. When the matter came up before this Court on 24th  

February, 2014, the following order was passed :

“In  the  meantime,  the  petitioner  may  file   additional affidavit indicating how much area  of the land is still an open land and what are   the nature of  construction  which  have been  done by the petitioner after allotment of the  land.”

6

Page 7

SLP (C) No……./2014 [CC No.2940/2014]

The affidavit filed in pursuance of the above order was  

not  found to  be satisfactory  and on 11th April,  2014,  the  

following order was passed :

“Counsel for the petitioner is directed to file a   better  affidavit  within  a  period of  one week   explaining as to how the area which has been  alleged not have been used by the petitioner   for  the  school  purposes  have  been  utilized  and  also  whether  the  construction  was  undertaken  after  the  interim  order  was  passed by the High Court.”

7. We have heard Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel  

for the petitioner.

8. He submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to  

construct  and  run  a  school  for  500  poor  and  under  

privileged children of the area at its cost, within the time  

frame  as  may  be  laid  down  and  subject  to  appropriate  

conditions.  The petitioner will bear the education cost, fees  

etc. of such poor and under privileged children for all times  

to come.

9. We have  bestowed our  serious  consideration  to  the  

proposal  put  forward.   Though  any  proposal  for  

advancement  of  poor  and  under  privileged  children  is  

welcome but the background of the matter noticed above  

shows the track record of the petitioner which renders the  

7

Page 8

SLP (C) No……./2014 [CC No.2940/2014]

proposal  suspect  and  in  any  case  land  allowed  to  be  

retained being enough if the petitioner wishes to carry out  

the proposal now given, no ground is made out to interfere  

with the impugned order.  The petitioner took prime land of  

the State and failed to comply with the conditions on which  

the land was allotted, for a long time.  Accordingly, the land  

stands resumed by the State of Haryana and as per order of  

the  High  Court,  the  land  stands  re-vested  in  the  Gram  

Panchayat.  Mutation has also been sanctioned in favour of  

the  Gram Panchayat  and  the  land  is  to  be  used  for  the  

benefit of the villagers.

10. As already noted, the High Court has duly examined  

all aspects of the matter.  On orders of the High Court, an  

Advocate Commissioner inspected the site in the presence  

of representative of the petitioner, who reported that in the  

area  marked “X”  no  construction  was  made,  as  claimed.  

This  report  was  not  even  challenged  by  the  petitioner.  

Having taken huge track of prime public land in the name of  

advancing the cause of education, it failed to act as per the  

agreement  and  put  forward  the  specious  plea  of  lack  of  

funds.   The  people  of  the  village  were  deprived  of  the  

benefit  of  the  common land due  to  false  promise of  the  

petitioner.   Still,  7  acres of  land has been allowed to  be  

8

Page 9

SLP (C) No……./2014 [CC No.2940/2014]

retained by the petitioner.  If the petitioner wants to serve  

poor and under privileged children as now proposed, it is  

free to do so on this part of the said land.   

11. We also find that the Division Bench considered the  

contention that construction was raised during pendency of  

proceedings.    It  was found that interim order dated 14th  

May, 2001 permitting construction was subject to result of  

the  writ  petition.   Moreover,  even  thereafter  no  proper  

utilization of land was shown to have been made, though  

the brochure of school painted a rosy picture.   Thus, the  

track record of the petitioner is to take private benefit from  

land of the village, taken over by the State at petitioner’s  

instance  to  advance  education  –  a  public  cause.   Such  

individual and private benefit at the cost of public cannot be  

permitted  and  is  contrary  to  constitutional  values  to  be  

followed by the State of advancing welfare of the society.  A  

finding  of  fact  has  been  recorded  by  the  competent  

authority about the failure of the petitioner to carry out the  

terms and conditions of allotment which finding has been  

duly upheld, concurrently by the learned Single Judge and  

the  Division Bench.   Thus,  public  interest  will  not  in  any  

manner  be  advanced  by  interference  by  this  Court  on  a  

mere offer to serve poor children when track record of the  

9

Page 10

SLP (C) No……./2014 [CC No.2940/2014]

petitioner  has  been to  advance  individual  interest  at  the  

cost of the village.

12. We have not  been able to discern as to why forest  

land was acquired, if such land was already vested in the  

Government.   There is nothing to show that the requisite  

permission  was  taken  for  converting  forest  land  for  non  

forest purposes.   In B L Wadhera vs. Union of India1, this  

Court  considered  the  validity  of  gifting  of  the  village  

common land for a hospital to Shri Chandra Shekhar, former  

Prime  Minister.  Quashing  the  said  decision,  this  Court  

observed :

“41. Once the land was found to have been used  for the purposes of forest,  the provisions of the  Indian Forest Act and the Forest Conservation Act   would  be  attracted,  putting  restrictions  on   dereservation of the forest or use of the land for   non-forest purposes. The Forest Conservation Act,   1980  has  been  enacted  with  the  object  of   preventing  deforestation.  The  provisions  of  the  aforesaid Act are applicable to all forests. It is true  that “forest” has not been defined under the Act   but this Court in  T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad  v. Union of India1 has held that the word “forest”   must  be  understood  according  to  its  dictionary   meaning. It would cover all statutorily recognised  forest whether designated as reserved, protected   or otherwise for the purposes of Section 2(i) of the  Forest  Conservation Act.  The term “forest  land”  occurring  in  Section  2  will  include  not  only  the   forest as understood in the dictionary sense but   also  any  area  regarded  as  forest  in  the   government record irrespective of the ownership.   The provisions of the Forest Conservation Act are   applicable to all forests so understood irrespective  of  the  ownership  or  classification  thereof.  This   

1  (2002) 9 SCC 108

1

Page 11

SLP (C) No……./2014 [CC No.2940/2014]

Court has issued certain directions and guidelines   for the preservation of forest and its produce in   T.N. Godavarman case1 which are not shown to  have been implemented by the respondent State.

42. Section  2  of  the  Forest  Conservation  Act   mandates that no State Government or authority   shall make an order directing that any forest land  or any portion thereof shall cease to be reserved   or any forest land or any portion thereof may be  used for non-forest purposes or forest land or any   portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease   or  otherwise  to  any  private  person  or  to  an  authority,  corporation,  agency  or  any  other   organisation  owned  and  controlled  by  the  Government or any such land or portion thereof   be cleared of trees which have grown therein —  without  the  prior  approval  of  the  Central   Government.  The  gifting  of  land,  in  the  instant   case, cannot, in any way, be termed to be for a   forest purpose. Learned counsel appearing for the  State of Haryana showed us a government order   which  had  declared  the  area,  covered  by  gift   deeds,  as  forest  prohibiting  the  cutting  of  the   trees,  declared  as  forest  though  for  a  limited   period  of  25  years.  It  is  submitted  that  as  the   period of  25 years was not extended, the land,   earlier  declared  as  forest,  had  ceased  to  be  a   forest land. Such a plea is contradictory in terms.   The State of Haryana is proved to be conscious of   the fact that the land, intended to be gifted, was  either  the  forest  land or  property  of  the  Forest   Department  regarding  which  condition  6  was  imposed  in  its  order  granting  the  approval  for   gifting  the  land  by  the  Gram Panchayat  to  the   Trust.  It  is  too  late  now  in  the  day  for  the   respondent  State  to  urge  that  as  notification  declaring  the  land  as  forest  was  not  extended  after  initial  period  of  25  years,  the  same  be   deemed to not be a forest land or land used for   the purpose of the forest. In the affidavit filed on  behalf of the respondents it is specifically stated:

“It  is  submitted that  the  State Government   had  only  given  approval  to  the  Gram  Panchayat  for  gifting  the  land.  However,   while permitting the Gram Panchayat to gift   the land by way of abundant precaution, the  State Government had imposed the condition  to the effect that the land in question be got   

1

Page 12

SLP (C) No……./2014 [CC No.2940/2014]

released  from  the  Forest  Department  in   accordance  with  law.  The  permission  given  by State Government did not mean at all that   the donee or the donor was authorised in any  way to divert the user of land in question.”

The contradictory pleas taken and stands adopted  by  the  respondent  State  strengthens  the  argument of the petitioner that the transaction of   making  the  gifts  in  favour  of  Respondent  7  is   actuated  by  considerations  other  than  those  specified  under  the  Act  and  the  Rules  made  thereunder.

43. Learned counsel, appearing for Respondent 7,   has submitted that as the land is being utilised for   the  purpose  of  the  Trust  and  Shri  Chandra   Shekhar  is  not  taking  any  advantage  from  the   said  land,  the  action  initiated  by  way  of  public   interest litigation is not sustainable. There is no  doubt  that  the  land  has  not  been  utilised  by   Respondent 7 for any commercial purpose but it   is equally true that the land is being utilised for   purposes  other  than  those  contemplated  under   the Act and the Rules made thereunder for which   the gift  was approved to be made by the Gram  Panchayat in favour of Respondent 7. We are not   impressed  with  the  argument  of  Respondent  7  that the gifted land was acquired for the purposes  of welfare of the people and the upliftment of the  inhabitants  of  the  Gram  Panchayat.  The  land  appears to be utilised for the personal leisure and  pleasure  of  some  individuals  including  the  Chairman  of  Respondent  7  which  cannot  be  termed to be used for the upliftment of the poor   and  the  oppressed  as  claimed.  It  cannot  be   disputed that in this country the position of the   rural  poor is worst.  According to an assessment  about  2/3rds  of  the  rural  population  which  consists  of  farm  workers,  small  and  marginal   farmers,  poor  artisans  and  the  unemployed  agricultural labourers are possessed of 15 to 20%  of the total available land. The number of owners   of  land with  less  than 0.2  hectares is  about  29   million.  When  millions  of  landless  agriculturists   are struggling to get some land for feeding their   families and protecting their lives, Respondent 7  has  manoeuvred  to  usurp  about  600  acres  of   land, apparently for not any public purpose. It is   

1

Page 13

SLP (C) No……./2014 [CC No.2940/2014]

unimaginable that for the construction of a three- room dispensary, Respondent 7 would require and  the Gram Panchayat as also the State of Haryana  would oblige by conferring State largesse of about   271 kanals of land. The shocking facts of the case   further  disclose  that  even  this  three-room  dispensary  has  not  been  built  on  the  land  in   controversy.  For  a  reasonable  person,  as   Respondent  7 is  presumed to  be,  the aforesaid   land  should  have  been  returned  to  the  Gram  Panchayat  after  public  controversy  had  risen  culminating  in  the  filing  of  the  present  writ   petition  in  public  interest.  This  Court  cannot   remain a silent spectator where people’s property  is  being  usurped  for  the  personal  leisure  and  pleasure  of  some  individuals  under  the  self- created legal, protective umbrella and name of a  trust.  A politician of the stature of Shri Chandra   Shekhar cannot claim to minimise the sufferings   of  the  people  by  constituting  the  Trust  and  utilising  the  lands  taken  by  it  allegedly  for  the   upliftment  of  the  poor  and  the  oppressed.  The  purpose of the respondent Trust may be laudable   but  under  the  cloak  of  those  purposes  the  property of the people cannot be permitted to be  utilised  for  the  aforesaid  objectives,  particularly   when  the  law  mandates  the  utilisation  of  the  transferred property in a specified manner and for   the benefit of the inhabitants of the area, the poor   and  oppressed  and  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Backward Classes. We are not impressed with any  of the pleas raised on behalf of Respondent 7 that   the  land  was  acquired  bona  fide  for  the  proclaimed object of upliftment of the people of   this  country  in  general  and  of  the  area  in   particular.  We fail  to  understand as  to  how the  country can be uplifted by personal adventures of   constituting  trusts  and  acquiring  hundreds  of   acres of lands for the purposes of that Trust. It is   nothing  except  seeking  personal  glorification  of   the persons concerned.”

13. We cannot lose sight of above observations in view of  

the fact that we are dealing with the issue of allocation of  

public  land  to  a  private  entity  which  requires  fair,  

transparent and non arbitrary exercise of power in the light  

1

Page 14

SLP (C) No……./2014 [CC No.2940/2014]

of mandate of Article 14 read with Articles 39 (b) and (c) of  

the Constitution.  Once it is found that beneficiary of such  

allotment has abused its position to its advantage and to  

the disadvantage of the public, this Court cannot interfere  

with  the  fair  order  passed  by  a  competent  authority  

resuming the land.   

14. Thus, the proposal put forward cannot be taken at its  

face value and cannot be the basis for interfering with the  

impugned  orders.   The  land  has  to  be  utilised  by  the  

competent  authority  in  a  transparent  manner  as  per  

applicable policy and law.   

The special leave petitions are dismissed.

……..…………………………….J. [ V. GOPALA GOWDA ]

.….………………………………..J. NEW DELHI          [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ] October 14, 2014

1