VIRENDRA GAUR AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 78 · Decided: 24-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
VIRENDRA GAUR AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 24, l 994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA,.JJ.] 
Municipalities: 
Haryana Municipal Act, 1973--Sections 203, 205, 250--Land vesting· 
in 
Municipality-Reserved for 
open space for better sanitation, 
C 
environmental and recreational purposes of residents in the locality--
Leased to a Sama} Sabha for charitable purposes-Sabha constructing · 
building on 
the 
/and-Allotment 
~f land to 
Sabha. by State 
Government/Municipality-Held invalid-Construction put up· by the 
Sabha-Directed to be pulled down. 
D 
The Municipal Committee, Thanesar framed .a Town Planning 
Scheme and it was sanctioned by the Haryana Government. The first 
appellant surrendered 25% of her lan(I to the Municipality, which was 
a condition for sanction to constr~_ct her. bµilding, and the. said land 
stood vested in the Municipality. The construct~oh of the buildings had . 
E . to be in .accordance wit~ section 203 .of the Haryana Municipal Act, · 
1973 
while 
section . 205 
thereof prohibited 
construction, 
in 
contravention of the said scheme. Admittedly, the land was earmarked 
for open space. Subsequently, the Government allotted the land to' 
Punjab Samaj Sabha and the Sabha obtained sanction and started 
construction of Dharamshala. The appellants filed .writ petitions and 
p 
sought. ad-interim injunction; The· High Court dismissed ttie Writ 
Petition: 
In this appeal, the appellants contended that since the land in 
question was reserved for open spaces.· . for better sanitation, 
. environment and recreational purposes of the residents in the locality, 
G 
the. Government had no power to lease out the land to the Sabha, and 
that it acte~ in excess of its power under section 250 of the Act. 
On behalf of the Tbanesar Municipality, it was contended that the 
Government had formulated general guidelines as to the manner in 
which the land belonging to the Municipality could be put to public 
H 
purposes, one of which was the grant or lease for charitable purposes, 
78 
:.. 
VIRENDRA GAUR v. STATE OF HARYANA 
79 
and that the Sabha wanted to construct Dharamshala for charitable A 
purposes. 
On behalf of the Sabha it was contended that it had spent more 
than Rs. 7 lakhs in constructing the building and any order passed by 
this Court may therefore be made prospective. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The action taken by the Government is wholly without 
authority of law and jurisdiction and the sanction of land by 
Municipality for different use defeats the purpose and is in violation of 
law and the Constitution. (82 C) 
2. Article 21 protects right to life as a fundamental right. 
Enjoyment of life and its attainment including their right to life with 
human dignity encompasses within its ambit, the protection and 
preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of 
B 
c 
air and water, sanitation without which life cannot be enjoyed. Any D 
contra acts or actions· would cause environmental pollution. 
Environmental, ecological, air, water, pollution, etc. should be regarded 
as amounting to violation of Article 21. Hygienic environment is an 
integral facet of right to healthy life and it would be impossible to live 
with human dignity without a humane and healthy environment. 
Environmental protection, therefore, has now become a matter of E 
grave cQncern for human existence. Promoting environmental 
protection implies maintenance of the environment as a whole 
comprising the man-made and the natural environment. Therefore, 
there is a constitutional imperative on the State Government and the 
Municipalities, not only to ensure and safe-guard proper environment 
but also an imperative duty to take adequate measures to promote, F 
protect and improve the environment man-made and its natural 
environment. [83 E to G] 
Stockholm Declaration of United Nations on Human Environment, 
1972, referred to. 
3. It is seen that the open lands, vested in the municipality, were 
meant for the public amenity to the residents of the locality to maintain 
ecology, sanitation, recreational, play ground and ventilation purposes. 
The buildings directed to be constructed necessarily adversely affect 
G 
the health and the environment. Therefore, the order passed by the 
Government and the action taken pursuant thereto by the Municipality H 
80 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
A 
would clearly defeat the purpose of the scheme. The land ha

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