RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATIONversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

                       [2014) 10 S.C.R. 1036


A              RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION
                                  v.
                  STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
       (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28189 of 2014 etc.)
                        OCTOBER 14, 2014
B
                   [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND
                  ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]

        Land Acquisition:
c
        Resumption of acquired land -Land acquired and
  handed over to petitioner for opening a school - No
  construction made for a long time - Resumption order passed
  - Order affirmed by High Court - Held: Petitioner took prime
D land of State and failed to comply with the conditions on which
  the land was allotted, for a long time - Accordingly, the land
  stands resumed by State Government and as per order of
  High Court, it stands re-vested in Gram Panchayat - Besides,
  the land was a forest land and there is nothing to show that
E the requisite permission was taken for converting forest land
  for non forest purposes - However, still, 7 acres of land has
  been allowed to be retained by petitioner- If petitioner wants
  to serve poor and under privileged children as proposed, it
  is free to do so on this part of the land - Constitution of India
  - Arts. 21 and 39.
F
        Constitution of India:

       Arts. 21 and 39(b} and (c) rlw Art. 126 - Allocation of
  public land to private entity - Held: Requires fair, transparent
G and non arbitrary exercise of power in the light of mandate of
  Art. 14 read with Art. 39 (b) and (c) - Once it is found that
  beneficiary of such allotment has abused its position to its
  advantage and to the disadvantage of the public, Supreme


H                               1036
 RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION v. STATE OF 1037
            HARYANA & ORS.

Court cannot interfere with the fair order passed by a         A
competent authority resuming the land.

      BL Wadhera vs. Union of India (2002) 9 SCC 108- relied
on.
                                                               8
                      Case Law Reference:
      c2002) s sec 108            referred to      Para 12

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP Petition (C) No.
28189 of 2014.                                                 c.
     From the Judgment & Order dated 27.9.2013 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 1687
of 2013.

                             WITH                              D

SLP(C) No. 28195-28196 of 2014.

      Suresh A. Shroff & Co. for the Petitioner.
                                                               E
      Senthil Jagadeesan for the Respondents.

      The Order of the Court was delivered by

    ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Delay condoned. Heard
on merits.                                                     F

    2. These petitions have been preferred against the
Judgment and Order dated 27th September, 2013 passed in
LPA No.1687 of 20.13, Order dated 16th September, 2013
passed in _LPA No.1618 of 2013 and Order dated 16th            G
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              H
    1038     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A   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
B   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
C   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
D   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, resumption Order dated
E   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
F   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 :
G
         "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
H        to admission of children, the year in which the
RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION v. STATE OF 1039
 HARYANA & ORS. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

  admissions were started, the classes in which the               A
  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   B
  had been affiliated with flny educational board. I have no
  hesitation to hold that (he petitioners have intentionally
  withheld this informatidn as revelation thereof would
  completely shake their tall claim to start an educational
  institutions, one of the best in the area to impart quality     c
  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 D
 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 E
  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 F
  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          G
  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   H
  years of entering into agreement in February 1988. The
    1040   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A      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
B      inadequacy of funds.



        The State of Haryana acquired more than 76 acres of
        land belonging to the Gram Panchayat, Village Bari. The
c       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
D       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
E       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
F       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 /arid resumed by the impugned order has been
G      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.
H
 RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION v. STATE OF 1041
  HARYANA & ORS. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

   As an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove, the           A
   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        B
   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   c
   exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
   Constitution of India."

     5. The Division Bench after thorough consideration
reiterated the above findings as follows :
                                                                  D
   "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       E
   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 a/ongwith the said affidavit goes on to show that     F
   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,       G
   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       H
        1042    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 10 S,C.R.


A           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, 76,5481
            - vide letter dated 16. 10. 1998, regarding the cost of the
B
            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
c           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.

D
    '       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."

E           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
F           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
G 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 beerl utilized
H
 RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION v. STATE OF 1043
  HARYANA & ORS. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

    and also whether the construction was undertaken after          A
    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    B
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.                c
     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       D
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    E
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        F
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     G
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
forwafd the specious plea of lack of funds. The people of the       H
    1044     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 10 S.C.R.


A   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.
B
        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
C 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
D 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,
E 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.
F
      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
G purposes. In B L Wadhera vs. Union of lndia 1 , 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 :


H 1. (2002) 9 sec 10s.
RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION v. STATE OF 1045
 HARYANA & ORS. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

  "41. Once the land was found to have been used for the        A
 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        B
 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 lndia1 has
 held that the word "forest" must be understood according       c
 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     D
 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     E
 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         F
  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     G
  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     H
    1046   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A      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
B      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
c      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
D
       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:
E
              "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
F             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
G             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
H
RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION v. STATE OF 1047
 HARYANA & ORS. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

  petitioner that the transaction of making the gifts in favour   A
  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
                                                              8
  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 C
  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 D
  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 E
  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 213rds of the rural population which F
  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 G
  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-room dispensary, Respondent 7 H
    1048    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014) 10 S.C.R.


A       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
B       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
c       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
D
        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
E       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
F       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
G       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,
H public land to a private entity which requires fair, transparent
 RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION v. STATE OF 1049
  HARYANA & ORS. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

and non arbitrary exercise of power in the light of mandate of      A
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.                            B

     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      C
law.

     The special leave petitions are dismissed.

Rajendra Prasad                                   SLPs dismissed.