RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 10 S.C.R. 1036 · Decided: 14-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2014) 10 S.C.R. 1036 
RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28189 of 2014 etc.) 
OCTOBER 14, 2014 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition: 
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. 
Case Law Reference: 
8 
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 
SLP(C) No. 28195-28196 of 2014. 
Suresh A. Shroff & Co. for the Petitioner. 
Senthil Jagadeesan for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Delay condoned. Heard 
D 
E 
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. 
G 
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 th

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