Page 1

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…28195-28196 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  passed  in  LPA  

No.1618 of 2013 and Order dated 16th December, 2013 passed

Page 2

2

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 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,

Page 3

3

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.  

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  

Page 4

4

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  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,  

Page 5

5

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 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  

Page 6

6

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.”

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

Page 7

7

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 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

Page 8

8

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 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

Page 9

9

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 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  

1

 (2002) 9 SCC 108

Page 10

10

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  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

Page 11

11

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  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 unimaginable that for the construction of a three-

Page 12

12

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 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

Page 13

13

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