B.L. WADHERA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 226 · Decided: 19-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
.:.r 
A 
B.L. WAD HERA 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 19, 2002 
B 
[R.P. SETHI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
,.... 
7 
Public Interest Litigation: 
... 
c 
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961/Punjab Village 
Common (Regulations) Rules, 1964/Forest Conservation Act, 1980-Sections 
2(g), 3,4,5, 5A and SB/Rules 3(2), 13,10 and 6/Section 2: 
) 
Largesse-Conferment of-By way of grant of land-Legality and validity 
of-On/acts, Gram Panchayat with approval of State gifted land-To leader 
D of national stature, a reputed member of Parliament for years and former 
Prime Minister of India-For purpose of construction of ciVil dispensary and 
women's Polytechnic-Also another piece of land given for plantation withqut 
~-
"' 
any f'ight-Some more land proposed to be gifted for extension of Polytechnic 
but not approved by State-Petitioner alleging irregularities in the gifts made-
; 
Writ petition-Held, procedure of auction not followed, no utilisation plan 
E prepared-Gifts made in favour of persons other than those contemplated 
under the Section-Gifted land not released from forest department through 
(; 
proper channel-Land gifted for purpose contrary to the order of approval-
Construction of dispensary in a village but not on gifted land-Establishing 
Stree Niketan instead of women's Polytechnic-Gifted land not for forest 
purposes-All gifts made without complying with conditions imposed in 
T 
~ 
F 
" 
violation of law, thus gifts invalid-Respondent-Trust directed to return land 
to Gram Panchayat with certain other directions. 
!-
Respondent No. 7 is a leader of national stature, a reputed member of 
~ 
Parliament for years and a former Prime Minister of a country. Gram 
' 
G Panchayat by passing resolution gifted land to Respondent No. 7 for 
r 
construction of a civil dispensary which was approved by the State Govern-
i'-
ment. Thereafter land was gifted for building Hospital and a Polytechnic for 
--
women. 500 acres of land was also given for plantation to Trust but without 
conferring any right upon the Trust. Gram Panchayat again proposed to gift 
land to Respondent No. 7 for extension of Polytechnic, but the same was not 
H 
226 
. ..., 
--
B.L. W ADHERA v. U.O.l. 
227 
approved by the State Government. Petitioner alleged that there were certain A 
irregularities in the manner in which the gifts were made. Hence the present 
writ petition. 
In writ petitions before this Court appellants submitted that the 
transactions involving gifting of the land were against the provisions of the 
Act and the Rules. It was contended that the land having been recorded as B 
forest land could not be transferred to a private party by the Gram Panchayat 
or the Government. The purposes for which the land was gifted is stated to 
be inconsistent with the provisions of law and thus not legally permissible. 
No prior approval of the State or the Central Government was obtained with 
respect to the forest land. The gift deeds are alleged to have been executed C 
even in violation of the approval of the State Government. Further after 
incorporation of Sections SA and SB, gift of the common land, vesting in the 
Gram Panchayat could be made only in favour of the specified categories and 
for the benefit of the inhabitants. The proclaimed purpose of the Trost has 
nothing to do with the transactions by which it has acquired the lands. Neither 
the inhabitants for the Gram Panchayat has been benefited by the impugned D 
transactions. 
State Government justifying its action contended that the land in 
controversy had been declared as forest land for a limited period and in the 
absence of extension of period it ceased to be the forest land. 
E 
Gram Panchayat submitted that SOO acres of land, after afforestation, 
has been returned to the State Government as per direction of the Court and 
also justified the action of the Gram Panchayat in making the gifts of the lands 
to respondent No. 7. 
Respondent No. 7 submitted that mere violation of the terms of the 
approval would not render the transaction as illegal or void unless the initial 
transfer itself is proved to be against the provisions of law. If there is any 
violation of the terms of the grant, the appropriate authorities are at liberty 
F 
to initiate action against his client. Further all the conditions of the resolutions G 
of the Gram Panchayat, tile approval of the Government and the terms of 
the gift deeds have been complied with by respondent No. 7. It i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.