B.L. WAD HERA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

stated: A "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 released from the Forests Department in B accordance with law. The permission given by State Government did not mean at all that the donee or the doner was authorised in any way to divert the user of land in question. "

The contradictory pleas taken and stands adopted by the respondent-State C strengthens the argument of the petitioner that the transaction of making the gifts in favour of the respondent No. 7 is actuated 'by considerations other than those specified under the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

Learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 7, has submitted that as the land is being utilised for the purposes of the Trust and Shri D Chander 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 the respondent No. 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 E in favour of respondent No. 7. We are not impressed with the argument of the respondent No. 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 respondent No. 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 rural poor is worst. According to an assessment about 2/jrd of the rural population which consists of farm workers, small and marginal farmers, poor artisans and the unemployed agricultural labourer are possessed of 15 to 20% of the total available land. The number of owners of land with less than O. 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, the respondent No. 7 has maneuvered to usurp about 600 acres ofland, apparently for not any public purpose. It is unimaginable that for the construction of three rooms dispensary, the respondent No. 7 would require and the Gram H

• "264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A 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 the respondent No. 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 p~ople's property_ is being usurped for the personal leisure and pleasure of some individuals under the self-created legal, protective umbrella and the name of a Trust. A politician of the stature of Shri Chander 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 inhabits 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 the respondent No. 7 that the land was acquired bonafide 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.

It may not be termed as co-incidence that the respondent No. 7 is shown to be in possession of 500 acres of land without any approval, order or deed or found in possession of land belonging to BSF for a number of years. Failure on the part of the respondents to deliver the possession of about 17 acres of land, admittedly, not transferred to it or possessed by it under a valid order or authority has added weight to the allegations of the petitioner that the action of the respondent No. 7 was illegal and not bonafide. We are fully satisfied that the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat resolving to transfer the land measuring 27 I kanals 6 marlas and 151 kanals 19 mar!as, the approval granted by the respondent-State for making the gift by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the respondent No. 7 and the ultimate gift deeds executed in favour of the respondent No. 7 are not referable to any authority of law and apparently being contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules are void-ab-initio, not affecting the rights of the inhabitants of H Gram Panchayat, Bhondsi. The respondent No. 7 has no justification to retain

B.L. WADHERA v. U.0.1. [SETHI, J.] 265

-·.J any piece of the controversial land in its possession and is liable to deliver A its possession to the Gram Panchayat. In view of our fmdings, we set aside and quash the Resolution dated 22.10.1983 and 8.12.1989 of the Gram Panchayat, orders dated 3.3.1984 and 6.6.1990 of the State Government and the gift deeds executed by Gram Panchayat in favour ofrespondent-Trust and direct the delivery of possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat in the manner specified in this judgment. B

It has been stated at the Bar after the execution of the gift deeds the respondent No. 7 has raised construction and spent huge sums of money ,\ which may be taken into account for not divesting him of the possession of the land in dispute in general and the land where those structures have been raised in particular. We are not impressed by this argument also. We feel that c the interests of justice would be met by directing the payment of the amounts spent by respondent No. 7 in the construction of the structures, though the respondent No. 7 cannot claim any advantage for usurping the said land. The . appropriate authorities would take into account the cost of construction as reflected in the account books of the respondent No. 7 and pay the same to D it. The construction raised and the land around it can be utilised for the , benefit of Gram Panchayat. The respondent No. 7 is, however, at liberty to

- , remove the movable properties including the cattle from the area within a period of two months from the date of this order.

Under the circumstances this writ petition is allowed by making the E Rule absolute with the issuance of following directions:

(i) Consequent upon quashing of Gram Panchayat Resolutions dated 22.10.1983 and 8.12.1997, the Government Orders dated 3.3.84 and 6.6.90 and the gift deeds executed by Gram Panchayat in favour of the respondent-Trust, the possession of the land, the F ""f subject matter of this litigation shall be handed over by the respondent No. 7, its Chairman, Directors, employees, representatives and agents, initially to the State Government who shall thereafter deliver it to the Gram Panchayat with specific directions for utilisation of the land in the manner prescribed. G (ii) The respondent-State shall constitute a committee within 15 days comprising of the Chief Secretary, The Deputy Commissioner, ~ Gurgaon, the concerned Block Development and Panchayat Officer, the representative of the Ministry of Environment,

- Government of India, a representative of the Ministry of Home H

p. 266 Copy page pinpoint

A Affairs (Central Government) and the President of the District Bar Association; Gurgaon and the Sarpanch of Panchayat, BhondSi, to take possession of the land within two months from the date of its constitution and submit its compliance report in this Court . by ·30th July, 2002. (

B (iii) The Committee appointed in ·terms of direction N<?. (ii) shall formulate a scheµie for the utilisation of the aforesaid land when its possession is taken from the respondent No. 7..Such scheme shall initially be implemented by the State Government and when ---, its possession is delivered to the Gram Panchayat the aforesaid ... scheme shall be placed before the Gram panchayat for its approval. c The Gram Panchayat at that time may take appropriate actions for giving effect to the scheme in the manner proposed by the committee or with such modifications as may be deemed proper in the interests of the Panchayat and for the purposes enumerated under the Act and the Rules. D (iv) The respondent-State shall appoint anoth~r committee comprising of its Finance Secretary, Chi~f Engineer of the PWD, a representative ofthe·Accountant General and the Sarpanch of the ).._ Gram Panchayat to assess the costs of construction of the buildings ... constructed on the land. The cost shall be assessed on the basis E of the account books of the respondent-trust withiri a period of two months from the date of the constitution of that Committee. (v) That the State Government shall make the payment to the respondent No. 7 of the amount assessed as the value of the constructions raised within a further period of two months. After compliance of the formalities regarding taking possession and F "r' making the payment, the symbolic possession of the land shall be transferred to the Gram Panchayat for the purposes of its income and the land along with structures raised thereon shall be utilised for the purposes and in the manner specified in the policy to be formulated by the Committee appointed in terms of Direction No. G (ii) hereinabove. (vi) The amount of the cost of construction, paid by the State Government to the respondent No. 7, shall be recovered from the ~ Gram Panchayat in the manner and during the time as may be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the H committee appointed in terms of direction No. (iv).

B.L. WADHERAv. U.0.1. [SETHI.J.] 267 (vii) That the area of 500 acres of land, taken possession of by the A State Government in terms of this Court's order dated 24.7.2001 shall be delivered to the Gram Panchayat and utilised in such a manner which does not contravene the provisions of the Forest Conversation Act. (viii)No part of the land, the subject matter of the controversy shall be B utilised or transferred to any person or authority other than specified in Sections 5A and 5B of the Act, without prior sanction of the Central Government. J (ix) Under the circumstances of the case we do not issue any direction for the registration of any criminal case against the respondent C No. 7 or its office bearers.

(x) The respondent No. 7 is held liable to pay costs of Rs. 25,000. Such costs shall, initially, be paid by the State Government and later recovered from the amount found payable as compensation to the respondent No. 7. Out of the costs recovered, a sum of Rs. D 20,000 shall be paid to Mr. U.U. Lalit, the learned amicus curaie who has very ably assisted the Court in the disposal of this petition. The balance Rs. 5,000 shall be payable to the petitioner.

! N.J. Petition Allowed.