LexDHARAM PAL GOEL (DEAD) BY LRS. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ / • DHARAM PAL GOEL (DEAD) BY LRS. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. JANUARY 13, 1997 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] A B Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :-Land acquisition-Public pwpose- Denotification.of acquired land-Pennissibility of-Appella11t-landow11er pur- chased land and constmcted school thereon-Initiation of proceedings for acquisition of land for a public pwpose viz. development of sectors-Wiitfiled C by appellant-His contention that the acquisition of the land for the public pwpose was not cmrect. since he intended to· se1ve. another public pwpose, namely establishing a school for the children of the locality dismissed-Ap- peal--Inspection directed by Supreme Cowt-Report-Report indicating that release of part land not feasible because of creation of Buffer zone-Held in such circumstances direction for release of pmt land was not expedient. D .CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 317 of 1997 . . From the Judgment and Order dated :ZS.8.93 of the Punjab & E Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 2960 of 1990. P.C. Jain and Ms. Indu Goswamy for the Appellant. Prem Malhotra for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : " F ~ ' : Leave granted. Th_is appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab High Court, made on September 25, 1993 in Writ Petition No. 2960 of 19_90. The original appellant, Dharam Pal Goel (hereinafter reft<rred to as the 'appellant') had purchased 1 bigha, .12 biswas of land in Khasra No. 718/2/2 Min and 714/1/1 Min situated in the revenue estate of G village Khandsa, Tahsil and District Gurgaon. The appellant constructed a school building in October 1985 on the land. The .respon&nts has issued notification on January 30, 1989 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the 'A.ct') for public purpose, namely, for development of the Sectors. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on H 231 I \ 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 1 S.C.R. January 25, 1990. Thereafter the appellant filed a writ petition in the High ~ A "'"" Court contending that the acquisition of the land for the public purpose was not correct since the appellant intended to serve another public purpose, namely, establishing a school for the children of the locality. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. Thus, this appeal by special leave. B Whe~ 'the matter had come up on May 10, 1996 for hearing, this Court directed that an Officer to be named by the respondents would make an inspectfon and submit a detailed report as to the actual land needed for 'I< the school building and for playground and to ascertain to what . extent c reasonable land is required to be released for the purpose of school and pJayground causing no disturbance to the scheme already evolved. In furtherance thereof, an inspection was made and on the basis thereof a decision was taken by the Director of Urban Estates, Haryana which has been communicated to the learned counsel for the respondents. D The report relevant for the purpose runs thus : " .... the width of the green belt along the Jaipur-Delhi national 'f--. highway is 50 m and non-buildable one were to be preserved then 617 sq. yards and land coming under the plan is also part of the released land need to be acquired. The school falls immediately E by the side of the national highway, which has very fast t"\O'Jing traffic. The purpose of keeping the restricted zone along the school roads is to provide a service lane besides other facilities and for undertaking tree plantation to act a buffer to contain pollution caused by the vehicular traffic. Leaving any more area now would effect the alignment of service road that may have to be built y.- F subsequently for regulated traffic flow along the busy national highway. Since containing 2066 sq. yards has already been released tliis results in green belUnon-buildable zone of 135 wide along national highway instead of 165' as per the development plan in the larger interest, no more land should be considered for release. G This is being suggested despite the fact that for a primary school, HUDA earmarks min. I acre land and that normative position is not being recommended to in view of the location of the appellants site being next to national highway.," 'f'w In the light of the extract of the report, that only question for H consideration is : whether the land purchased by the appellant serves an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.