http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 29

CASE NO.:

Writ Petition (civil) 179 of 1999

PETITIONER:

B.L. WADHERA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/04/2002

BENCH:

R.P. Sethi & K.G. Balakrishnan

JUDGMENT:

SETHI,J.

The respondent No.7, who is admittedly a leader of

national stature, a reputed Member of Parliament for years

and a former Prime Minister of the country is accused of

usurping about 600 acres of land in Village Bhondsi of the

State of Haryana by manipulations and resort to exercise of

his political influence. Moved by an article "Lord of the Land"

published in India Today of 18th January, 1999, the

petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition in

public interest, praying this Court to take cognizance of the

matter and issue appropriate directions against the aforesaid

respondent commanding him to vacate the land allegedly

grabbed by him by handing over its possession to the Gram

Panchayat of Bhondsi. It has been further prayed that as

the respondent has committed cognizable offences, a

direction be issued for commencement of the proceedings

against the Trust of which he is the Chairman. It is

submitted that the conferment of largesse upon the

aforesaid respondent is against the provisions of the Punjab

Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961, the Rules

made thereunder, Indian Forest Act and the Forest

Conservation Act, 1980.

In the article "Lord of the Land" published in India

Today, it was stated that after the respondent No.7

completed his so-called Bharat Yatra in 1983, he formed the

Trust known as "Bharat Yatra Kendra" (hereinafter referred

to as "BYK") of which he himself is the Chairman and

manipulated the passing of Resolutions by the Gram

Panchayat of Bhondsi resolving to gift him State forest land

measuring about 600 acres. The land was donated for

purposes not contemplated under the statute. It was further

alleged that the respondent No.7 had encroached upon 10

acres of land belonging to the Border Security Force.

Instead of constructing the Hospital and the Polytechnic for

women, for which the land was apparently donated, the

respondent No.7 built a sprawling farm-house where he

used to retire for weekends even when he was the Prime

Minister. When 10 acres of land bordering one end of the

Firing Range of the BSF was occupied by the respondent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 29

No.7, complaints are alleged to have been despatched vide

letter dated 9.4.1990 and matter brought to the notice of

the Gurgaon District Commissioner on 20.11.1990. No

action was taken. 500 acres of land which was apparently

given to BYK for greening of Aravallis was fenced by the

respondent No.7 as if it was a private property. The

conditions incorporated in the Resolution of the Gram

Panchaya, the order of approval by the Government and the

terms of the Gift Deeds were alleged to have been violated.

The article concluded with the observations, "It seems that

Bhondsi will never get back its 600 acres. The Haryana

Government doesn't seem perturbed. The Union

Government too hasn't responded despite repeated letters

from the BSF. Perhaps that's why Chandra Shekhar too is

not bothered. He wasn't then and he isn't now".

Based upon information, as disclosed in the article

published in India Today, the petitioner moved this Court

alleging that Bhondsi Gram Panchayat, by a Resolution,

gifted 33 acres of Gram Panchayat land to respondent No.7

for construction of a Hospital which was endorsed by the

Haryana Government on 22nd March, 1984. At that time

Shri Chander Shekhar was a Member of Parliament. Another

19 acres of land was donated by the said Gram Panchayat to

the respondent No.7 in the year 1990 by its Resolution

No.55 which was endorsed by Haryana Government on 28th

June, 1990. After Shri Chander Shekhar became the Prime

Minister of India on 10th November, 1990, the Gram

Panchayat passed another Resolution within 24 hours of his

becoming the Prime Minister gifting another 16 acres of

Gram Panchayat land to respondent No.7. The stated

purpose of for which the land stood donated was for building

Hospital and a Polytechnic for women. Instead of Hospital

and Polytechnic, the respondent No.7 is alleged to have

constructed a sprawling farm-house where 35 cows yielding

83 litres of milk everyday are kept. A multi-storeyed

Conference Complex, a guest house and a temple are stated

to have been built on the said land. Allegations regarding

encroachment of the BSF land, as mentioned in the article

published in India Today, were repeated. As neither the

Central Government, nor the State Government had taken

any action, the petitioner moved this Court. It is alleged

that the value of the land, under the occupation of the

respondent No.7, is about 12 crores. 500 acres of land,

which was given to the Trust for greening of Aravalli Hills, is

stated to have been occupied by respondent No.7 by fencing

it from all sides.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1

and 2, it is submitted that land measuring 40.6 acres was

acquired by BSF at Bhondsi, District Gurgaon, Haryana

during 1969 and years thereafter. Subsequently 25th

Batallion was assigned the responsibility of imparting basic

training to 500 recruits per year. To ensure proper training

to the recruits it was felt necessary to have proper training

area and also a full-fledged classification firing range as per

laid down specifications. BSF established training centre and

users trial centre at Bhondsi, where new instruments/

weapons/electronic gadgetry are tested before introducing in

various forces. By virtue of these assignments, the BSF

centre at Bhondsi is treated a very sensitive establishment.

In view of the importance of the BSF centre, the land

measuring 158 acres 2 kanals and 8 marlas was acquired in

November, 1990, in addition to 40.6 acres of land from the

State of Haryana. BYK, Bhondsi, respondent No.7 was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 29

stated to have made encroachments in BSF Land measuring

8 acres, 3 kanals and 7 marlas and constructed a wall at the

western side in the month of March/April, 1991. Matter was

reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon time and

again but no action was taken till 15.2.2000. 25th Batallion

of BSF again approached Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon on

15.2.2000 who directed the revenue authorities to

demarcate the encroached land. Revenue authorities

measured the encroached land and identified the same. The

BSF officials took over the possession of that land on the

said date. It may be noticed that the land of the BSF which

was encroached upon by the respondent No.7 was vacated

only after the filing of this writ petition and the issuance of

notice by this Court on 13.8.1999.

In their counter affidavits respondents 3 and 4, filed on

5.4.2000, the State of Haryana and Deputy Commissioner,

Gurgaon, Haryana, have stated that vide Resolution No.55

dated 23.10.1983 land measuring 33 acres 7 kanals and 6

marlas was proposed to be gifted by the Gram Panchayat,

Bhondsi to respondent No.7 whereupon the State

Government accorded its approval vide its order dated

3.3.1984. As per Condition No.1 laid down by State

Government in its order, the respondent No.7 was to

construct a civil dispensary building consisting of 3 rooms

with verandah. Vide another Resolution No.55 dated

8.12.1989 the Gram Panchayat proposed to gift 18 acres 7

kanals and 9 marlas of its land to respondent No.7 which

was also approved by the State Government vide its order

dated 26th June, 1990. This land was gifted by the Gram

Panchayat for construction/ establishing Polytechnic for

women. Thereafter the Gram Panchayat vide its Resolution

No.53 dated 8.11.1990, allowed respondent No.7 to plant

trees on its land measuring 500 acres on certain terms and

conditions without conferring any right upon the Trust. Vide

Resolution No.57 dated 11.12.1990, the Gram Panchayat

again proposed to give 16 acres 7 kanas and 9 marlas of its

land to respondent No.7 for extension of Polytechnic but the

State Government not agreeing, did not approve the above

mentioned Resolution. According to respondent Nos.3 and 4

land measuring 52 acres 6 kanas and 15 marlas of the Gram

Panchayat has been gifted to respondent No.7. It is

submitted that upon demarcation of Border Security Force

land, the respondent No.7 was found to be in possession of

the BSF land measuring 8 acres 3 kanals and 7 marlas, the

possession of which was delivered to BSF on 16.2.2000. It

is claimed that condition for construction of building

consisting of three rooms has been fulfilled by respondent

No.1 as it has constructed a dispensary in village Bhondsi

though not in the land gifted to it for the aforesaid purposes.

The Gram Panchayat Resolution No.57 dated 11.12.199

resolving to gift 16 acres 7 kanals and 8 marlas of land to

respondent No.7 was never approved. So far as condition of

establishing/constructing a Polytechnic for women in lieu of

land proposed to be gifted by the Gram Panchayat vide its

Resolution No.55 dated 8.12.1989 is concerned, the

respondent No.7 is stated to have informed the respondents

3 and 4 that a women Polytechnic under the name and style

of "Stree Niketan" has already been established in the year

1992 and the same is providing employment oriented

training to women from rural areas as well as the weaker

sections of the society in the field of weaving, pottery,

embroidery, food processing, etc. It is admitted that the

current rate of the land gifted to respondent No.7 was about

Rs.2 lakhs per acre but, it is submitted that the value of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 29

land is not 12 crores as alleged by the petitioner.

In the amended counter affidavit filed on 1st May, 2000

on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, it is submitted that the

"Stree Niketan", established by the respondent No.7 has not

been approved from the Government or affiliated with any

recognised University.

In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Gram Panchayat,

respondent No.6, it is submitted that vide various

resolutions total land measuring 52 acres 6 kanals and 15

marlas has been gifted by the Gram Panchayat to

respondent No.7. The condition of construction of

dispensary building consisting of three rooms with verandah

is stated to have been complied with by the respondent No.7

by construction of building for civil dispensary in the area of

Village Bhondsi though not in the land gifted. Resolution

No.57 dated 11.12.1980 resolving to gift 16 acres 7 kanalas

and 8 marals was never acted upon and the said land

continues to be in the ownership of Gram Panchayat. The

respondent No.7 is stated to have informed the Gram

Panchayat that a women Polytechnic under the name and

style of "Stree Niketan" was established in the year 1992

which is providing employment oriented training to women

of rural areas as well as from the weaker sections of the

society in the field of weaving, pottery, embroidery, food

processing, etc. The said "Stree Niketan" has not been

approved by the Government or affiliated with any

recognised University. The respondent No.7 is claimed to

have done an outstanding work on 500 acres of land of the

Gram Panchayat by planting trees and making the Aravalli

Hills green. The action of the Gram Panchayat is stated to

be in accordance with law.

In the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.7, Shri

Chander Shekhar, the Prsident of Trust, it is submitted that

the writ petition is based entirely on the write-up which was

published in the Weekly India Today on January 18, 1999.

The petitioner is stated to have no other source of

information and has approached the Court without verifying

and ascertaining the correctness of the write-up. The

allegations made in the petition are stated to be incorrect.

The writ petition has been termed to be a "classic illustration

of abuse of process in the name of Public Interest

Litigation". The petition is stated to have been filed by the

petitioner to gain cheap publicity and to settle old scores

which ought not to be countenanced. The petition is stated

to have been filed out of vengeance and personal vendetta

inasmuch as during the enquiry into the conspiracy angle

relating to the assassination of late Rajiv Gandhi, the former

Prime Minister of India by commonly known as the Jain

Commission, the petitioner while recording of evidence had

himself cross-examined the deponent and was agitated due

to the replies. He personally preferred an application before

the Jain Commission for certain reliefs. The petitioner is

accused of not prosecuting bonafide litigation but in the

name of public interest litigation was persecuting the

deponent to settle his old scores. It is submitted that the

petitioner be dealt with severely for having misused and

abused the process of law by instituting the present writ

petition. The writ petition is also not maintainable as

alternative and efficacious remedy is allegedly available to

the petitioner under the Gram Panchayat Rules, particularly

Rule 34 which empowers the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-

Divisional Officer to suspend the action of the Gram

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 29

Panchayat. None of the villagers who are stated to be the

beneficiaries of the programmes undertaken by the Trust

have any grievance with regard to donation of the land by

the Gram Panchayat in favour of respondent No.7. The

Government was satisfied before according the approval for

making the gift of the land by the Gram Panchayat. The

Trust is stated to have been established on 23rd September,

1983 with the Registrar of Delhi as a Public Charitable Trust

vide Registration No.3428, Block No.4, Volume No.1101.

The Trust is claimed to have been formed by respectable

persons of the society solely with a view to interact with the

masses for ameliorating the living conditions of the down

trodden persons and to profess that every man has a right

to grow in the society free from hunger, want of shelter,

medicine, education and other basic needs of life

irrespective of caste, creed, sex and religion. The Trust was

established after the conclusion of the Pad Yatra undertaken

by the deponent to cover a distance of 4260 kilomerters on

foot from Kanyakumari to Rajghat. Inspired by the

programmes and objectives of the Trust, the members of

the Gram Panchayat of Village Bhondsi met the deponent

and urged him to undertake the development programmes

in their area. The Gram Panchayat undertook to extend all

possible help to the Trust in achieving its aims and

objectives. Consequent to the discussions, the Gram

Panchayat vide Resolution No.55 dated 22.10.1983,

pursuant to an application by the Trust, resolved to gift 33

acres, 7 kanals and 6 marlas of land to the Trust free of cost

under Section 13 of the Punjab Common Lands Act, 1964.

It was resolved that the sanction be obtained from the

Panchayat Department through Block Development and

Panchayat Officer and Dy. Commissioner, Gurgaon. The

resolution was forwarded to the Government of Haryana for

its ratification and approval. It was approved by an order of

the Government dated 3rd March, 1984 according the

approval for the gift of the land to the Trust subject to the

conditions incorporated in the order. One of the conditions

was that "the land will be got released from the Forest

Department through proper channel". Pursuant to the order

of the Government of Haryana, Gram Panchayat executed

the gift deed on 30th March, 1984 which was duly registered.

Since the land, gifted to the Trust was far away from the

village, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Bhondsi held

discussions with the Trust and urged to construct the civil

dispensary building in the Village so that the same would be

convenient to the residents of the village, as aforesaid, the

gift deed expressly provided that the dispensary should be

constructed in the village itself. The value of the land at

that time was Rs.5807/- per acre which means that the total

value of the land, gifted to the Trust, was only Rs.1,92,300/-

. After taking over possession of the land, the Trust started

working to fulfil the conditions, mentioned in the order,

which approved the gift of the land as well as to achieve the

other aims and objectives mentioned in the Trust Deed. The

foundation stone of dispensary was laid down on 10.6.1985

and the dispensary was constructed as per specifications

contained in the order of the Government. After completion

of the building for dispensary, it was inaugurated by Shri

Devi Lal, the then Chief Minister of Haryana on 6.8.1989.

Thereafter the dispensary was handed over to the

Government and the same is now managed by the Haryana

Government. The Haryana Government is stated to have

issued a cheque in favour of respondent No.7 for a sum of

Rs.50,000/- from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund towards

maintenance of the dispensary constructed by the Trust

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 29

which was returned as respondent No.7 was of the view that

since the dispensary was to be managed by the Government

they were not entitled to retain the amount received from

the Government towards the management of the

dispensary. The area, at that time, was a ravine land

embedded with sand dunes. The rain water was being

wasted and used to cause a lot of soil erosion. The Trust is

stated to have constructed the earthen dam to collect the

rain water, which was not only being wasted but also used

to cause floods and play havoc in the village and

surrounding areas. The construction of such a dam

prevented the floods which earlier used to be the order of

the day. The Trust claims to have dug the tubewells in that

area and laid a water supply pipeline to supply the drinking

water to the nearby village Aklimpur. The Trust also

constructed the tank for water in the said village. The Trust

undertook afforestation programmes and planted the trees,

nearby villages were also supplied with saplings free of cost

and were taught about the inherent dangers of destruction

of forests. The Trust started dairy breeding centre, which

helped the villagers in betterment of breeds of cow which

resulted in higher production of milk. Women Polytechnic

under the name and style of "Stree Niketan" was started in

the year 1992 which provided the employment oriented

training to women from rural areas and from the weaker

sections of the society in the field of weaving, pottery,

embroidery, food processing, etc. The Trust claims to have

complied with all the conditions stipulated in the order dated

22.3.1984 approving the gift of land measuring 271 kanals 6

marlas.

Regarding land measuring 19 acres donated to the

Trust in the year 1990 it is submitted that the Gram

Panchayat, after being satisfied with the past performance of

the Trust and observing that the Trust fulfilled all conditions

earlier imposed, resolved to gift the 19 acres of land vide its

Resolution dated 8.12.1989. The Government of Haryana

accorded its approval on 6th June, 1990 as already noticed.

The Trust set up Polytechnic under the name and style of

"Stree Niketan" for the purposes stated in the affidavit. The

Trust is claimed to have spent Rs.42.96 lakhs on the

building and machinery of "Stree Niketan Polytechnic". The

Trust claims to have paid a stipend salary and wages

amounting to Rs.2,92,826/-, Rs.4,50,011, Rs.4,77,182/-,

Rs.2,07,329/- and Rs.2,12,986/- for the year ending 1993

to 1997 respectively. The Trust received the grant of

Rs.20,38,500/- from NABARD during the year ending

31.3.1993, Rs.5,37,750/- during the year ending 31.3.1994

and Rs.3,44,750/- during the year ending 31.3.1995. The

Trust also received the donation amounting to Rs.40,100/-,

Rs.10,68,266/-, Rs.14,06,648/-, Rs.5,62,868/- during the

year ending 31.3.92 to 31.3.95. The 16 acres of land

alleged to have been encroached upon by the Trust is stated

to have been transferred by its owners in favour of the

Trust. The deponent says "I say that Gram Panchayat has

no concern with the said 16 acres of land referred to in the

writ petition". Regarding the encroachment upon the BSF

land it is stated that since some dispute had been raised, the

Trust took up the matter with the Deputy Commissioner,

Gurgaon for demarcation of the land so that the dispute

could be resolved for which an application was made in the

year 1994. Even though Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon

vide his order dated 29.7.1994 directed the Naib Tehsildar,

Sohna to demarcate the land yet no action was taken by the

Revenue authorities.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 29

So far as 500 acres of land is concerned, it is submitted

that the same belongs to the Gram Panchayat with which

the Trust has no concern, except the fact that the said land

was given to it for afforestation and for greening the

Aravallis. No such land was ever gifted to the Trust by the

Gram Panchayat. The Trust has, at no point of time,

asserted any title to the said land. The fencing of the said

land was done by the Trust only with a view to prevent the

animals from destroying the plantation undertaken by it.

The Trust has got a grant of Rs.13,47,340/- from the

national Waste Land Board, Ministry of Rural Development,

Government of India and this grant has been used for

raising nursery, planting of trees, etc. The said patch of

land was rocky and hilly and there was no provision for

water. The Trust made efforts in arranging to lift the water

from the plain areas, stored it in the tanks to provide for

irrigation facilities. The Trust claims to have made the entire

area as an exemplary model by its serious efforts, hard work

and changed the barren, dry land embedded with sand

dunes, where not even a blade of grass appeared, into a

green and environment friendly land. It is denied that the

land measuring 52 acres was donated by the Gram Panchyat

to the Trust for building hospital and polytechnic for women.

The only condition in the two orders which were

approved by the Government on 3rd March, 1984 and 6th

June, 1990, was to construct the civil dispensary building

consisting of three rooms with verandah and polytechnic

which has been complied with. The deponent has denied of

encroachment on any piece of land which did not lawfully

belong to the Trust. It is submitted that it was wrong to

contend that the deponent has built a farm-house, multi-

storeyed conference complex, guest house and a temple on

the land gifted by the Gram Panchayat. According to him

the true position is that the Trust has constructed building

for Stree Niketan by spending Rs.33.76 lakhs. The 52 acres

of land, gifted to the respondent, was never intended to be

utilised only for civil dispensary as being sought to be made

out in the writ petition. Apart from creating the

infrastructure on the land gifted to it, the Respondent Trust

is perennially engaged in organising programmes with a

view to achieve its objectives mentioned in the Deed of

Declaration. The temple, existing on the land, is stated to

be an ancient temple not constructed by the Trust. The land

gifted to the Trust is being used only for the objectives and

activities of the Trust and as per conditions mentioned in the

Government order. The Trust is stated to be an income-tax

assessee. The sources of funds of the Trust are reflected in

its books of accounts which are duly audited. It is claimed

that besides the two lands being 33 acres and 19 acres no

other land was gifted by the Gram Panchayat to the

respondent Trust. The respondent Trust has not misused

the land as alleged. The deponent states that he has never

used any influence with any authorities for getting any

favour for himself but it is the villagers who had strongly felt

that by establishing the respondent Trust they would be

beneficiaries of the development activities undertaken by it.

All actions preceding the transfer of the land by way of gift

are claimed to be legal and valid requiring no interference by

this Court.

In his rejoinder affidavit the petitioner besides

reiterating the allegations made in the petition has stated

that he has no personal ill-will against any of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 29

respondents, particularly respondent No.7. He has claimed

to be an activist of public interest litigation having filed large

number of petitions in public interest, many of which were

considered and decided by this Court and the High Court of

Delhi. He claims to have nothing else in the mind except the

interests of the public while filing the petition. He admits

that the petition in fact was filed on the story published in

India Today but contends that as per direction of this Court

he collected further information and documents in support of

the averments made in the petition which he filed in the

court. He has denied the allegation that the present petition

has been filed by him for getting cheap publicity or to settle

personal scores with respondent No.7.

The petitioner has referred to various provisions of the

Punjab Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 and the Rules

made thereunder, as applicable to the State of Haryana and

also the provisions of Forest Conservation Act to point out

that the conferment of largesse by way of grant of land was

illegal, being against the mandatory provisions of the statute

applicable in the case. The gifting of land in controversy is

alleged to be violative of the provisions of Section 5A of the

Punjab Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter

referred to as "the Act"), the transfer has been termed to be

illegal and void-ab-initio. The respondent-State and the

Gram Panchayat are also alleged to have violated Rule 13 of

the Punjab Village Common (Regulations) Rules, 1964

(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The pieces of land

gifted consequent upon Resolution No.55 dated 23rd

October, 1983 and Resolution No.55 dated 8.12.1989 are

stated to be the forest lands which could not be transferred

without compliance of Condition No.6 attached to the

sanction granted by the State Government. As the gift

deeds were executed without obtaining sanction from the

Forest Department, the same being contrary to the approval

granted by the State of Haryana have been termed to be

non-existent. The land having been described as forest land

is claimed to be under the protective umbrella of Forest

Conversation Act which could not be transferred by any

means to any person. Section 2 of the Forest Conservation

Act, 1980 is stated to have been violated. Under the said

section no State Government can pass any order with

respect to any forest land or portion thereof to any other

person or authority. No prior approval of the Central

Government is stated to have been taken before execution

of gift deeds as was statutorily required. Despite the specific

condition in the order of approval which the State

Government had granted, neither the Gram Panchayat nor

the State Government could have transferred the land to

respondent No.7 without its prior compliance. The forest

Department who was admittedly in possession of the land is

not shown to have released the same either in favour of the

Gram Panchayat or the State Government or respondent

No.7. The transfer of the land, the resolutions passed in

relation thereto and orders passed by the State Government

sanctioning transfers being against the provisions of law

deserve to be quashed. The gifts of the land is also stated

to be in violation of the provisions of Section 122 and 123 of

the Transfer of Property Act as the respondents have not

placed on record any registered instrument showing the

execution of a formal, valid and legal gift deed. It is

conceded that after the filing of the writ petition in this

court, a piece of land measuring 8 acres 3 kanals and 7

marlas belonging to the BSF which was allegedly

unauthorisedly and illegally taken over by respondent No.7

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 29

has been returned to the BSF on 16.2.2000. It is however,

contended that the reliance of the respondent-State on Rule

3 of the Rules is misconceived. The provisions of the

aforesaid rule were never complied with as the Bhondsi

Gram Panchayat did not prepare the requisite plan.

After the filing of the rejoinder by the petitioner,

respondent No.7 and the State of Haryana sought

opportunity to file additional affidavits in view of the

averments made in the said rejoinder. This Court vide its

order dated 4.9.2000 allowed the prayer and permitted the

State of Haryana and respondent No.7 to file the additional

affidavits, if they so desire.

In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the

respondent No.3 it is submitted that pursuant to resolutions

passed by the Gram Panchayat, the State Government

accorded its approval for making the gift of the land to

respondent No.7 subject to certain conditions. During the

pendency of the writ petition, the Special Secretary,

Development and Panchayat Development vide his DO letter

No.PA-2000/3272 dated 18.7.2000 requested the Deputy

Commissioner, Gurgaon to intimate as to whether conditions

on which the land was allotted to respondent No.7 were

complied with or not. The Deputy Commissioner, vide his

Memo No.4472 dated 20th July, 2000 informed that

respondent No.7 has "till date not duly complied with the

conditions". On the basis of the said information, received

from the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, the State

Government has issued a show cause notice on 26.7.2000 to

respondent No.7 as to why the sanction issued by the

Government vide Order No.S.2/90/37308-11 dated

28.6.1990 be withdrawn and possession of the land in

question be restored to the Gram Panchayat.

In his additional affidavit Shri Chander Shekhar has

reiterated what he had submitted in his counter affidavit

filed earlier. He has, however, admitted that the State of

Haryana has issued a show cause notice which has been

appropriately replied. It is contended that the Trust has

been set up for the purpose of creating awareness and

undertaking programmes for rural development and

amongst others establishing centres for making provision for

drinking water, nutrition and health facilities for women and

children education, and to deal with the problems of

Adivasis and Harijans. It is claimed that between 1983 to

1990, the Trust has undertaken the task defined by it in

lands made available to it in various parts of India. The

Trust has undertaken activities on the land which has

resulted in arresting the soil erosion, raising of water levels,

construction of water reservoirs and roads. In terms of the

conditions of the gift, the Trust claimed to have built a

village dispensary which has enabled the residents of the

area to regularly obtain medical facilities. It is however,

mentioned that the dispensary is being run by the State

Government. The Trust is also providing advance knowledge

of breeding a better breed of cattle. The Trust has been

imparting education to the women in the polytechnic named

"Stree Niketan". The land gifted to the Trust house buildings

which in due course of time are to be used by scholars and

persons interested in creating a sense of mutual

understanding, communal harmony and national integration

without any charges being made. The forest land measuring

500 acres is claimed to have been developed by the Trust

where thousands of peacocks, pigeons, birds, jackals, foxes

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 29

and blue bull can be seen in the area on regular basis.

Narration of facts would be incomplete without

reference to the report of the Committee appointed in terms

of this order Court's dated 13th March, 2001. In pursuance

to our orders, the Home Secretary of the Central

Government had nominated Dr.Rakesh Hooja, Joint

Secretary (K.I), Ministry of Home Affairs and Mr.V.N. Rai,

Inspector General(G), BSF directing them to visit the spot

and submit a report. The officers visited the spot on 29th

March, 2001 and 6th April, 2001 and submitted two reports.

In the first report regarding visit of the Committee on 29th

March, 2001 it is stated:

"As regards site visits we initially visited the land

which figured in the resolution No.55 of Gram

Panchayat Bhondsi dated 8.12.1989 subsequently

approved by State Government vide its order

dated 6.6.1990 (endorsed on 28.6.90 to all those

concerned) which relates to 18 acres 7 kanals and

9 marlas. The land had been gifted to Bharat

Yatra Kendra Trust (hereinafter referred to as BYK

Trust) for construction of College and Polytechnic.

With regard to this land the State Govt. has issued

a show cause notice on 26.7.2000 to the BYK

Trust as to why, since all conditions have not been

fulfilled, the State Govt. sanction of 28.6.1990

should not be withdrawn and possession of land in

question not be restored to the Gram Panchayat.

Both Mr.Sood of BYK Trust and district officers of

Gurgaon indicated that the matter is still pending

with State Govt. who have reportedly fixed a date

in April for personal hearing of representative of

BYK Trust.

The site is depicted as "Polytechnic Land" in the

legend of the enclosed visual sketch map. The

land contains an ampetheatre. It also has the

structures which BYK Trust refer to as "Stree

Niketan". These structures contain a couple of

rooms of "offices", a hall where a potter was at

work who claimed he occasionally also "taught"

some children pottery, some rooms containing

some wooden looms and spinning/weaving

equipment which had not been used for a very

long time, bathrooms, a couple of side rooms

where some women were being taught tailoring, a

room containing old unused tailoring machines

etc. The structures did not appear to have been

designed for a polytechnic and/or college. The

women's training which appears something like a

crafts training centre is not recognised from any

competent body. Some people who indicated that

they were employed by Swatch were present who

indicated Swatch had a centre in the structures.

Mr.Sood BYK Trust representative indicated that

they had obtained support from NABARD for the

training and equipment. He said that paid

instructors were used to train locals but that they

were not paid by cheque.

As is evident from the sketch map a major part of

the land is vacated - the exact dimensions of

which shall become known only after the

demarcation/kayami ordered by the Deputy

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 29

Commissioner on 29.3.2001 (copy of order

enclosed as Annexure B) gets completed (this is

likely by 4.4.2001 as per the order of Deputy

Commissioner, Gurgaon).

The State Governments order of 6.6.1990

endorsed on 28.6.1990 clearly states that land will

be used for the purpose it has been gifted

otherwise Panchayat will take back possession.

The land is not being used for either a college or a

polytechnic let alone a college and polytechnic.

Thus prima facie it appears that condition has

been breached by BYK Trust. Another condition

which has reportedly not been met is that in

addition to Village Sarpanch one more member

elected by the Panchayat and a third member

nominated by the Deputy Commissioner be made

members of Managing Committee of the Trust.

The State Government could be advised to

expedite its decision in the show cause notice

already issued to by it BYK Trust.

It became obvious while we were inspecting the

above mentioned site that some parts of the land

about which Gram Panchayat Bhondsi had passed

resolution No.57 dated 11.12.1990 but which was

never referred to State Government and whose

ownership is still of the Gram Panchayat are in

possession of the BYK Trust and inside its

boundary walls. A perusal of the enclosed visual

sketch map where the legend calls this land as

"Land of Panchayat in possession of BYK" gives an

indication of how this land inter mingles with the

land mentioned in the previous paragraph. The

exact amount of panchayat land under possession

of BYK Trust would become known only after

completion of the demarcation/kayami exercise

initiated by Deputy Commissioner Gurgaon on

29.3.2001, but the local staff and Deputy

Commissioner who were present agreed based on

visual inspection and perusal of the land records

available that a significant part of this land of 16

acres 7 canals and 9 marlas whose ownership was

never transferred to BYK Trust is in possession of

the Trust.

The State Government could be advised to ensure

that once demarcation is done the possession land

of panchayat presently in possession of the Trust

be got delivered to the Gram Panchayat.

We then proceeded to the land regarding which

Gram Panchayat had resolved vide Resolution

No.55 dated 23.10.1983 on which State

Government had given its approval vide its order

dated 3.3.1984 endorsed to concerned persons on

22.3.1984 whereby 33 acres 7 canals and 6

marlas of Gram Panchayat land were gifted to BYK

Trust as per certain conditions. This land is

indicated as "Bharat Yatra Kendra Land", "Lake"

and "Dam" in the legend of the visual sketch map.

Deputy Commissioner Gurgaon accompanied us to

the beginning of this land near a large formal gate

constructed by BYK Trust and then begged leave

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 29

to attend to other urgent work in Gurgaon.

However, all other Government functionaries

mentioned as Annexure-A accompanied us

throughout our visit on this land and on the visit

subsequently to the forested land as described

later.

One of the conditions in the Government order

dated 3.3.1984 states that Bharat Yatra Kendra

Trust will construct a Civil Dispensary Building

consisting of 3 rooms with verandah. No such

dispensary has been constructed on this land.

Mr.Sood of BYK Trust indicated verbally that, on

the the request of the Panchayat, the Trust had

instead constructed a civil dispensary and

verandah in the main abadi of village of Bhondsi

on land of the Panchayat Ghar and separately

subsequently showed us a dispensary and

verandah in Bhondsi village next to the Panchayat

Ghar. This dispensary is being run by Haryana

Government. Sh.Sood of BYT said that BYK Trust

had handed it over after construction to Haryana

Government and returned Rs.0.50 lacs meant for

running the dispensary to the Government. The

District Development and Panchayat Officer

Gurgaon mentioned that BYT had received Rs..5

lacs plus Rs.1 lacs plus Rs.0.50 lacs from CM

Relief Fund for the dispensary and that he

believed Rs.0.50 lacs had been returned by the

Trust.

It is for State Government to determine whether

the Trust actually constructed the dispensary on

the land of panchayat Bhawan in the main abadi

of Bhondsi village and also that if, even though

no dispensary at all has been constructed on the

entire piece of land gifted to the Trust as per the

order of 3.3.1984, it can be construed that the

condition of the order of 3.3.1984 has been met.

During the site visit it could be ascertained that

the structures constructed include a large cattle

shed (total animals reported 35 or 36 whose milk

was consumed internally with BYK Trust or

supplied to nearby persons), building reportedly

for storing fodder and containing some living

space for the helpers, a building referred to as

staff canteen or workers mess, a building being

used as office cum residence by Mr.Sood which

also contains a small conference room, the Asoka

Mehta Building which is a largish complex

apparently meant for conference and library etc.,

along with air conditioned rooms meant for

visitors, a building reportedly being used by

Sh.Chandrashekhar ex-Prime Minister, nearby

smaller living building (reportedly for SPG staff

etc. a "guest house where trustees of BYK Trust

stay, some smaller structures including near the

gate and a couple of building containing more than

one stories referred to as staff residences/

quarters. A number of tubewells have been

constructed along with an electricity room.

Landscaping has been done and there are green

lawns over the undulating land with flowers/trees

etc. A dam and a lake exist which apparently

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 29

have been constructed or reinforced by the Trust.

The rough sketch map sent through BDO Sohna

by Deputy Commissioner Gurgaon indicates some

of the main structures only. It also appears to

indicate that one corner of this land marked in red

over the blue markings as Panchayat land in

possession of the Trust. However the exact

position in this regard would only be come clear

once the demarcation and kayami ordered by

Deputy Commissioner Gurgaon on 29th March,

2001 is completed.

A significant position of this land pertaining to the

government order of 22.3.1984 is vacant and the

exact area may be determined only once the

demarcation/kayami is completed.

One of the conditions in order of State

Government dated 22.3.1984 is that the land will

be used for the purposes mentioned in the

constitution otherwise it would taken possession

back.

Thus the State Government could be advised that

in addition to determining whether any condition

had been breached by the fact that no civil

dispensary of 3 rooms with verandah has been

constructed on the land gifted by the Gram

panchayat, they could also review whether the

structures presently constructed by BYK Trust are

for the purposes mentioned in the constitution or

not.

In fact though the show cause notice issued by

State Government on 26.7.2000 and cited earlier

by us only refers to the land as per Government

Order dated 28.6.1990, the Deputy Commissioner

Gurgaon had on 210.7.2000 written Special

Secretary to the Government of Haryana

Development and Panchayat Department that for

both the lands vide Government Order of

22.3.1984 and vide Government Order dated

28.6.1990 the conditions in the Government

orders had not been fully complied with.

The Gram Panchayat had also passed a resolution

No.53 dated 8-11.2.1990 allowing BYK to plant

trees on land measuring 500 acres as per certain

terms and conditions. Apparently this resolution

was never referred to the State Government and

ownership of the land was not transferred to BYK

Trust. It is not our job to examine whether or not

the Gram Panchayat resolution required approval

at either Panchayat Samiti, or Zila Parishad, or

Government level. Both Sarpanch and Sh.Sood

on behalf of BYK Trust as well as the Government

functionaries all indicated that on this land which

was already afforested the BYK Trust has

undertaken some plantation work. The

understanding seems to be that BYK Trust would

plant and maintain afforestation on behalf of the

Gram Panchayat. We visited a part of this land,

which is primarily on hillside and hilltop. BYK

Trust has built a road on to the site which

presently passes through land earlier in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 29

possession of BYK Trust but now restored to the

Border Security Force. The BSF has constructed a

boundary wall on the land restored to it but

presently there are no gates at the portion where

the road passes through its land. BYK Trust

claimed that they would be building an alternate

road outside the BSF land. BSF could be advised

to either completely close the wall or to install

gates so that entry on to BSF land could be

regulated by BSF.

The afforested land of the Gram Panchayat land

has reportedly been enclosed by a wall by BYK

Trust. We visited parts of the land and could see

the boundary wall at many places. Along the road

some plantation has been done and some pipes

for watering of plants have been installed.

It appears that the land was already afforested

and some supplementation has been done by BYK

Trust along with the Trust having enclosed the

land with a stone well. The land also has a temple

with a large statue. We could not visit the statue

during our visit. Reportedly near the temple there

is a structure referred to as "Dharamshala". This

also could not be visited by the team. It is not

clear as to whether the Dharamshala and temple

were constructed by BYK Trust or by someone else

and when - and if the Trust got the construction

done then whether it was breach of any condition

or rule."

In the report regarding the visit of the Committee on 6th

April, 2001, the Committee physically verified the land with

the Revenue record. The Committee found the existence of

temple, dharamshala, staff quarters and bakery also on the

spot. The Committee further found that land measuring 6

acres 3 kanals and 10 marlas which was in possession of the

respondent Trust had never been transferred to it. The

Committee further found:

"In the forest area which has been enclosed by the

trust 3 rooms have been constructed at different

places which are reportedly used by the watch and

ward staff of Bharat Yatra Kendra. Details of the

388 acres 3 canals and 12 marlas are at page 65

to 69 of Annexure E only.

Land for Forest Area enclosed with the

compound of land for dispensary

From the Sajra and record made available to us it

is apparent that at two different places a total of

land slightly more than 3 acres which is part of the

forest land measuring 500 acres as per the

resolution of 1990 has been enclosed within the

Trust compound alongwith the land given for the

construction of dispensary. Some of this land is

under buildings some under roads, some has been

made part of the lake and some has been used a

spark land. Details of this area are at page 77 of

report Field Kanoongo, Sohna (Annexure E) read

with pages 55 to 59 pertaining to Khasra Numbers

130 and 130.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 29

Gair Mumkin Nallah land

There is also a nallah on the Khasra No.279. Out

of area of 9 acres 3 kanals 7 marlas of this khasra

which is entered as Gairmumkin Nallah in the

record and therefore which is panchayat land, 8

acres 2 marlas of this nallah is under possession

of Bharat Yatra Kendra. Based on the

demarcation executed by the Revenue authority

they reported that 4 kanal 5 marlas of this land

was being used by the Trust for construction for

building next to the land gifted for polytechnic and

college to Bharat Yatra Kendra (See page 79 of

Kanoongo's report). The representative of the

trust had verbally claimed that this construction is

being carried on private land which was purchased

by Bharat Yatra Kendra and not on the nallah

land.

While kila-wise details of land occupied for various

purposes and of vacant lands have been spelt out

in details at pages 19 to 69 in report of the

Kanoonga received by us through Deputy

Commissioner, Gurgaon, the report also contains

land use area summaries for each of the above

mention lands (Page 71 to 79 of Kanoongo's

report). Copy of Ak Sajra received from Deputy

Commissioner is also enclosed along with the

Kanoongo's report which is at Annexure E."

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the

parties at length and minutely examined the record

produced in the case.

Mr.U.U. Lalit, Advocate, learned amicus curaie

submitted that the transactions involving gifting of the land

were against the provisions of the Act and the Rules. He

specifically drew our attention to Sections 2(g), 3, 4, 5, 5A

and 5B of the Act and Rules 3(2), 6, 10 and 13 of the Rules

besides the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. He

has contended that the land having been recorded as 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 even in violation of the

approval of the State Government. It is contended that

after incorporation of Sections 5A and 5B 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 Trust has

nothing to do with the transactions by which it has acquired

the lands. Neither the inhabitants nor the Gram Panchayat

has been benefited by the impugned transactions.

Mr.Neeraj Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the

State of Haryana, tried to justify the action of the State

Government. He argued that the land in controversy had

been declared as forest for a limited period and in the

absence of extension of period it ceased to be the forest

land.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 29

Mr.Mahabir Singh, learned counsel who appeared for

the Gram Panchayat submitted that 500 acres of land, after

afforestation, has been returned to the State Government as

per direction of the court. He has submitted that the

aforesaid land be handed over to Gram Panchayat. The

learned counsel has also justified the action of the Gram

Panchayat in making the gifts of the lands to the respondent

No.7.

Mr.Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate, who appeared

on behalf of the respondent No.7 has 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. It is

contended that if there is any violation of the terms of the

grant, the appropriate authorities are at liberty to initiate

action against his client. Taking us through various

documents, the learned senior advocate has pointed out that

all the conditions of the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat,

the approval of the Government and the terms of the gift

deeds have been complied with by respondent No.7. It is

submitted that land measuring 500 acres has been returned

back after afforestation and according to him no dispensary

was required to be built in the land gifted to respondent

No.7. The only condition precedent was for the construction

of a dispensary in the village which stands fully complied

with. The condition for establishment of the polytechnic

college is also stated to have been fulfilled. The land gifted

is claimed to be used only for the objectives of the Trust.

No authority has found any illegality in action as is claimed

to be evident from the grant-in-aid, sanction and utilisation

certificate issued in favour of respondent No.7. It is

contended that the action of the Gram Panchayat and the

State Government is legal, valid and according to law

regarding which no objection can be raised. The writ

petition is stated to be misconceived which is liable to be

dismissed.

Even though the respondent No.7 in his counter

affidavit had challenged the locus standi of the petitioner to

file the writ petition and its non-maintainability in public

interest, yet during the arguments heard for two days no

objection has been raised either regarding the locus of the

petitioner or the maintainability of the writ petition filed in

this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

In this petition the controversy relates to the following

pieces of lands:

i) Land measuring 271 kanals 6 marlas = 33 acres 7

kanals 6 marlas decided to be gifted to respondent

No.7 by the Gram Panchayat of Village Bhondsi vide

Resolution No.55 dated 22nd October, 1983 regarding

which the State Government had accorded its approval

vide its order dated 3.3.1984 subject to the conditions

specified therein.

ii) Land measuring 151 kanals and 19 marlas = 18 acres 7

kanals 19 marlas decided to be gifted to respondent

No.7 by the Gram Panchayat vide its Resolution No.55

dated 18.12.1989 for which the approval of the State

Government was granted on 6th June, 1990 subject to

the conditions specified therein.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 29

iii) Land measuring 500 acres which was transferred by

the Gram Panchayat vide its Resolutions dated

8.11.1990 and 26.7.1994 to the Trust for the purpose

of plantation of trees. This transfer was never

approved by the State Government.

iv) Land measuring about 17 acres resolved to be

transferred to the Trust vide Gram Panchayat

Resolution dated 11.12.1990. The aforesaid resolution

never reached the State Government and thus no

approval was granted.

v) Land measuring 8 acres 3 kanals and 7 marlas

belonging to the Border Security Force allegedly

unauthorisedly encroached upon by the Trust.

When this petition came up for hearing on 24th July,

2001, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent

No.7 stated that with regard to the land measuring 500

acres given to the Trust for plantation of trees the Trust

does not claim any interest or possession over it. He further

stated that respondent No.7 was not in possession of the

land and the land belonged to the Gram Panchayat.

Considering the aforesaid statement, learned counsel

appearing for the State of Haryana was directed to take

possession of the land immediately and put proper guards

and security so that the trees which were stated to have

been planted over the said land are not damaged or

destroyed. Pending further orders, the State Government

was ordered not to allot the aforesaid land to anyone except

with the prior permission of the Central Government and of

this Court, till the pendency of the proceedings. A team of

officers of the Central and the State Governments was

authorised to take possession of the land at the earliest.

They were ordered to prepare panchanama of the land while

taking possession and submit the compliance report in the

court before 31st July, 2001. The Deputy Commissioner,

Gurgaon, vide his letter No.PA/2001/267 dated 30.7.2001

submitted the compliance report intimating that the

Committee approved by the Court comprising of

Central/State Government officers have taken over the

possession and hence complied with the orders. The

possession of the pucca structure was handed over to the

Tehsildar, Sohna and the trees/plantation to the DFO(T),

Gurgaon.

So far as land mentioned in Item No.(v) is concerned, it

has come on record that after proper identification, the land

has been returned to the BSF. Regarding land measuring

about 17 acres mentioned in Item No.(iv), the respondent

No.7 initially took a plea that the said land was owned and

possessed by private persons and they transferred the same

in favour of the respondent-Trust allegedly having regard to

the activities taken by it for the development of the area and

for the well being of the villagers. It was contended that the

Gram Panchayat had no concern with the said 16 acres of

land. However, in the written submissions of respondent

No.7 it was stated that:

"Further apart from the land which has been given

by the panchayat some other lands mentioned in

the petition may have been inadvertently included

in the Trust's land. This land can be taken back

by panchayat whenever it wants."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 29

Again in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent

No.7 it is submitted:

"That the deponent also wants to point out that it

has been wrongly alleged in the reports of the Two

Member Committee that land measuring 17 acres

was found under illegal occupation of the Trust. It

is submitted that the said land was also proposed

to be gifted by the Village Panchayat, Bhondsi,

vide Resolution No.57 dated 11.10.1990 and the

same was sent to the Government of Haryana for

approval. However, the said approval has not

given by the State Government so far. Thus, it is

wrong to suggest that the Trust is in illegal

occupation of the said land. However, out of the

said about 17 acres of land, 10 acres are a part of

the 500 acres of land on the Aravali Hills, which

can be confirmed from the revenue documents

placed on record itself. The other 7 acres are still

with the Trust as it falls under small pockets

within the other lands gifted to the Trust. In case

the approval is not given by the State

Government, the Village Panchayat can take back

the possession of the said land."

From the inconsistent pleas raised and in the light of

the latest affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.7, it

is held that the Trust has no right or interest in the said land

measuring about 17 acres and is liable to return it to the

Gram Panchayat in presence of the Deputy Commissioner of

the area. In this view of the matter, no further directions

are required to be issued so far as land mentioned at Item

No.(iv) is concerned.

The limited controversy now relates to the land

mentioned at Item Nos.(i) & (ii).

As the relevant facts are not seriously disputed, it is

necessary to have a glimpse of the provisions of law

applicable in the case. The Act was enacted to consolidate

and amend the law regulating the rights in shamlat deh and

abadi deh in the then State of Punjab which, after the

formation of new State of Haryana, was also made

applicable to it. Shamlat deh, as defined under Section 2(g)

of the Act includes:

"1. Lands described in the revenue records as

Shamilat Deh or (Charand-in Hr) excluding abadi

deh.

2. Shamilat tikkas;

2A. was Shamlat deh, but has been allotted on

quasi-permanent basis to a displaced person, or,

has been otherwise transferred to any person by

sale or by any other manner whatsoever after the

commencement of this Act, but on or before the

9th day of July, 1985.

3. land described in the revenue records as

shamilat tarafs, patties, pannas and tholas and

used according to revenue records for the benefit

of the village community or a part thereof or for

common purposes of the village;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 29

4. Lands used or reserved for the benefit of

village community including streets, lanes,

playgrounds, schools, drinking wells or ponds,

within abadi deh or gorah deh, and;

4a. Vacant land situate in abadi deh or gora deh

not owned by any person - in Har. only):

5. Lands in any village described as banjar

qadim and used for common purposes of the

village according to revenue records;

Provided that Shamilat deh at least to the extent

of twenty-five per centum of the total area of the

village does not exist in the village; in Haryana

only):

Section 3 provides that the Act shall apply and before the

commencement of the Act the shamlat law shall be deemed

always to have been applied to all lands which are shamlat

deh as defined in clause (g) of Section 2. Sub-section (2) of

Section 3, as amended in 1995, provides that

notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of

Section 4 where any land has vested in a Panchayat under

the shamlat law but such land has been excluded from

shamlat deh under clause (g) of Section 2, other than the

land so excluded under sub-section (iia) of that clause all

rights, title and interest of the Panchayat in such land, as

from the commencement of the Amendment Act, shall cease

and all such rights, title and interest vest in the person or

persons in whom they were vested immediately before the

commencement of shamlat law. Where any land has vested

in the Panchayat under the Act, but has been excluded from

shamlat deh, all rights, title and interest of the Panchayat in

such land as from the commencement of the Act shall cease

and all such right, title and interest shall, on or before the

9th day of July, 1985 revert in the person or persons to

whom the land so excluded has been allotted or otherwise

transferred by sale or by any other manner whatsoever

subject to various conditions mentioned in the amended

section. For the purposes of present controversy the

amended provisions are, however, not relevant.

Section 4 of the Act deals with the vesting of rights in

Panchayat and non-proprietors. Under Section 5 all lands

vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under

the Act shall be utilised or disposed of by the Panchayat for

the benefit of the inhabitant of the village concerned in the

manner prescribed. Where two or more villages have a

common Panchyata, the shamlat deh of each village shall be

utilised and disposed of by the Panchayat for the benefit of

the inhabitants of that village. Provided further that where

the area of the land in shamlat deh in any village was vested

or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat is in excess

of twenty five percent of the total area of that village

(excluding abadi deh) then twenty five percent of such total

area shall be left to the Panchayat and out of the remaining

area of shamlat deh, an area upto the extent of twenty five

percent of such total area shall be utilised for the settlement

of landless tenants and other tenants ejected or to be

ejected of that village and the remaining area of shamlat

deh, if any, shall be utilised for distribution of the small

land-owners of that village, subject to the provisions relating

to (permissible area under the Haryana Ceiling on Land

Holdings Act, 1972, by the Assistant Collector of the first

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 29

grade) in consultation with the Panchayat (in such manner

and on payment of such amount) as may be prescribed. If,

in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary to

take over to secure proper management for better utilisation

for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village concerned

any shamlat deh the Government may by notification take

over the management of such shamlat deh for a period not

exceeding twenty years. Under Section 5A of the Act, a

Panchayat may gift the land in shamlat deh, vested in it

under the Act, to members of the scheduled castes and

backward classes of the village in which such land is situated

on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. The gift

of land in shamlat deh, already made, shall be deemed to

have been made under sub-section (1) of Section 5A.

Section 5B of the Act prescribes that any transfer of land

gifted in pursuance of the provisions of Section 5A, made in

contravention of the prescribed terms and conditions, shall

be void and the gifted land so transferred shall revert to and

re-vest in Panchayat free from all encumbrances. Sections

5A and 5B of the Act were inserted vide Haryana

Amendment Act No.25 of 1976 with retrospective effect.

Section 15 of the Act authorises the State Government

to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act.

Under Clause (ff) of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act,

the rules made can provide for the terms and conditions on

which the land in shamlat deh may be gifted to the members

of the scheduled caste and backward classes in Haryana.

The Rules were framed in the year 1964. Rule 3

provides that the Panchayat shall prepare a land utilisation

plan of the land in shamlat deh vested in it under the Act

and it shall be the duty of the Block Development and

Panchayat Officer to assist the Gram Panchayat concerned in

the preparation of the said plan which shall be subject to the

approval of Panchayat Samiti where the area exceeds 100

acres but does not exceed 1000 acres. Under Sub-Rule (2)

of Rule 3, the Panchayat may make use of the land in

shamlat deh vested in it under the Act either itself or

through another, for any one or more of the purposes

specified therein including the purposes of school buildings,

school library or any other structure for educational

purposes, maternity or first aid centres and hospital and

dispensary. Rule 6, at the relevant time, provided that all

leases of lands in shamlat deh shall be auctioned after

making publicity in the manner laid down in Sub-Rule (10).

A detailed procedure regarding auction, admittedly not

followed in the present case, has been specified in the said

Rule. Rule 10 provides that the Panchayat may allow the

use of land in shamlat deh, vested in it free of charge to the

inhabitants of the village for the purposes of steeping of

hemp or any other plant in ponds, residential purposes of

members of the Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes or

dependents of the defence personnel killed in any war after

the independence of India or landless labourers or tenants in

genuine cases on ground of poverty and any other suitable

common purpose. Rule 13 provides that the Panchayat

may, with the previous approval of the Government, gift the

land in shamlat deh, vested in it under the Act, for the

purposes of hospital, dispensary, or educational or charitable

institutions or for such other purposes as may be approved

by the Government to be for the benefit of inhabits of the

village concerned. The Panchayat, with the previous

approval of the Government, may gift the land in shamlat

deh vested in it under the Act, for the purposes of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 29

construction of houses, laying out common places and

providing other amenities under the Model Village Scheme

approved by the government for the benefit of the

inhabitants of the village. Rule 13A provides that the terms

and conditions on which the land under Section 5A may be

gifted shall be as under:

"(a) The donee shall not sell, mortgage or dispose

of the land in any other manner, whatsoever

before the expiry of a period of twenty year from

the date of the gift;

Provided that doner may mortgage the land

with any scheduled bank or Housing Board or the

government for the purpose of raising loan for the

construction of the house;

(b) the donee shall construct a house on the land

within a period of two years from the date of the

gift;

(c) the donee shall use the land for residential

purposes and for no other purposes, and

(d) In case of death of donee, his legal heirs

shall be bound by the condition therein

contained."

It is true that under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 the

Panchayat can use the land in shamlat deh, vested in it

under the Act, either itself or through another, for any or

more of the purposes specified therein, but it is equally true

that the authority under the aforesaid rule can be exercised

only after the utilisation plan of the land in shamlat deh has

been prepared under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3. There is

nothing on the record to show that any such utilisation plan

was prepared warranting the action under Sub-Rule (2). If

the recourse was to be had to the aforesaid provisions, the

utilisation of the land through an agency other than the

Panchayat could be hade by leasing out the site and

compliance of the conditions specified in Rule 6. No such

action appears to have been taken in the instant case.

Rule 13 authorises the Panchayat to make a gift for the

purposes of hospital, dispensary or education or charitable

institutions or for such other purposes as may be approved

by the government to the benefits of the inhabitants of the

village concerned. Such a gift can be made only with the

previous approval of the Government. Rule 13 apparently

appears to be beyond the scope of Rule making powers of

the State Government inasmuch as the right of the

Panchayat to gift the land is circumscribed by the provisions

of Sections 5A and 5B of the Act. Clause (ff) of sub-section

(2) of Section 15 authorises the State Government to frame

Rules regarding the terms and conditions on which the land

shamlat deh may be gifted to the members of the Scheduled

Caste and Backward Classes. Section 15 does not authorise

the State Government to make Rules with respect to the gift

of the land to persons other than those contemplated under

Section 5A and 5B of the Act. Any rule which is contrary to

the provisions of the Act cannot be given effect to or made

the basis of gifting the property, vesting in the Gram

Panchayat. It cannot be disputed that the gifts proposed by

the Panchayat, approved by the State Government and

ultimately made by the Gram Panchayat are in violation of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 29

provisions of Section 5A and 5B of the Act read with Rule

13A of the Rules. As the gifts have been made in favour of

persons other than those specified in the mandatory

provisions of Sections 5A and 5B, the same are void-ab-

initio. Making of the gift apparently appears to be abuse of

the powers vesting in the Panchayat. The State Government

appears to have taken a very casual approach in the matter

and granted the approval for reasons best known only to it.

Non application of the mind of the State government is writ

large in the case. The manner in which the Gram Panchayat

and the State Government have dealt with the matter shows

that they were overshadowed by the towering political

personality of Sh.Chander Shekhar, Chairman of Respondent

No.7. His giant stature, hovering over the office bearers of

the Gram Panchayat and officials of the State Government

appears to have factually immobilised them in the discharge

of their duties which resulted in their scummbing to heavy

weight of the influential respondent.

There is no denial of the fact that the Rules under the

Act were framed in the year 1964 and Sections 5A and 5B

were inserted vide Punjab Act No.25 of 1976. Prior to the

incorporation of the aforesaid sections, the respondent-State

had a right to gift land out of the shamlat deh for purposes

as specified in Rule 13 but after the amendment of the Act,

Rule 13 became redundant and could not be invoked as its

exercise would be against the provisions of the Act,

authorising the making of gifts only in favour of the persons

specified in the aforesaid two sections.

Assuming that the Government had the right to grant

the approval for making the gift under Rule 13, the same

was required to be strictly followed and adhered to for the

purposes as specified under the said Rule. It appears that

the State Government, while exercising the power under

Rule 13, had in mind the purposes specified in Sub-rule (2)

of Rule 13 of the Rules which provided for user of the land

by the Panchayat or through another for the purposes of

school building, school library or any other structure for

educational purpose, maternity or first-aid-centres, hospital

or dispensary. The Government Order dated 22.3.1984

accorded the approval for the gift of shamlat land by Gram

Panchayat, Bhondsi measuring 270 kanals 6 marlas out of

Khasra numbers of the land specified in the order for setting

up a welfare institution as resolved by the Gram Panchayat

Bhondsi. The approval to gift the shamlat land was,

however, subject to the following conditions:

"1. Bharat Yatra Trust will construct a Civil

Dispensary Building consisting of 3 rooms with

verandah.

2. Non technical hands will be appointed from

the village residents.

3. One representative from the village will be

taken on Trust Body.

4. The land to be donated will not be sold or

transferred any other body.

5. The land will be used for the purpose

mentioned in the construction otherwise the

Panchayat will take possession back.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 29

6. The land will be got released from the Forest

Deptt., through proper channel."

Similarly, the approval for gift of shamlat land measuring

150 kanals 19 marlas out of khasra numbers specified in the

order was accorded for the setting up of a college and

polytechnic as resolved by the Gram Panchayat subject to

the same conditions. The making of the gift depended upon

the compliance of the conditions, specified in the aforesaid

two Government orders. Concededly the condition No.6 for

getting the land released from the Forest Department

through proper channel was never complied with before the

execution and registration of Gift Deeds. It is conceded

before us that the land, the subject matter of the gift has

not, however been got released from the forest Department

as per conditions of the order approving the gifting of the

shamlat land in favour of respondent No.7. Without release

of the land from the Forest Department, the Gram

Panchayat had no authority, power or jurisdiction to execute

the gift deeds in favour of any person including respondent

No.7. Any gift made in violation of the mandate of law and

the conditions of approval has to be deemed to be non-

existent in the eye of law not affecting the rights of the

original owners of the land, i.e., Gram Panchayat and its

inhabitants. Learned counsel, appearing for the

respondents, could not satisfy us regarding the legality and

validity of the gift deeds without compliance of Condition

No.6 of the order of the Government granting approval for

making the gift. The Gram Panchayat has dealt with

property of its inhabitants in a reckless manner with the

object of depriving the people of the area, the user of the

land under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The

land which was intended to be used for scheduled castes and

backward classes, admittedly, the oppressed section of the

society apparently appears to have been usurped by

respondent No.7 under the shadow of the politically

influential personality and stature of its Chairman.

Mr.Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for

respondent No.7, has vehemently argued that under the

resolutions passed and the gift deeds executed, no

obligation was cast upon the respondent No.7 to construct a

civil dispensary building or the college and polytechnic on

the land gifted by the Gram Panchayat, Bhondsi. Such a

submission has to be noticed only for being rejected

inasmuch as the order of the State Government specifically

provided that the shamlat land of the Gram Panchayat was

approved to be gifted for setting up of a welfare institution

in the form of a civil dispensary as also college and

polytechnic on the land gifted. The gifting of the land even

under Rule 13 of the Rules is, admittedly, subject to the

approval of the State Government. When the State

Government specifically provided in its order of approval

that the lands shall be utilised for the purposes mentioned

therein, the Gram Panchayat had no right to make the gift of

the land to respondent No.7 for any other purpose.

Prescribing conditions in the gift deed, contrary to the order

of approval, renders the gift deed void not affecting the

rights of the inhabitants of the Gram Panchayat. Rule 13

itself mandates that the Government may grant approval for

gifting the shamlat land vesting in the Panchayat for the

purpose of "hospital, dispensary or educational or charitable

institutions or for such purpose as may be approved by the

Government to be for the benefit of the inhabitants of village

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 29

concerned". Despite adopting a casual approach, the State

Government had specified one of the purposes mentioned in

Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 13 for making the gift of the Gram

Panchayat which was violated by the Gram Panchayat while

executing the deed of gift in favour of respondent No.7.

It has been pointed out on behalf of respondent No.7

that as a dispensary has been constructed in the village

though not in the land, the condition of the Government

order stood complied with. We do not agree with such a

submission. If the construction of the dispensary in the land

gifted to the respondent No.7 was felt to be inconvenient for

the inhabitants of the village, as argued before us, the Gram

Panchayat and the respondent-Trust were under a legal

obligation to approach the State Government afresh for

modification of its order. Construction of three rooms

dispensary by the Trust which is admittedly now managed

and manned by the Government cannot be termed to be the

compliance of condition No.1 of the Government order. The

Gram Panchayat had no power, right or jurisdiction to

transfer land measurign 271 kanals 6 marlas by way of gift

in lieu of getting constructed three room dispensary in the

village. The Gram Panchayat is not a commercial institution

and has no right to deal with the property of the people in

the manner they have done, apparently for appeasing

respondent No.7.

Regarding compliance of condition No.1 with respect to

land measuring 151 kanals 19 marlas it has been contended

that by establishing "Stree Niketan" the respondent No.7 has

complied with the aforesaid condition. We again do not

accept such a plea. College and polytechnic cannot be

equated with the Stree Niketan allegedly established by

respondent No.7 which is admittedly not recognised by any

Government or affiliated to any University. The Committee

appointed in terms of this Court's order, in its report, has

found, on facts, that the land is not being used for either a

college or polytechnic. It is true that for violation of the

aforesaid condition no action be taken for declaring the gift

deed void but the non user of the land either for a college or

for a polytechnic and insistence of the Stree Niketan being

the substitute of it clearly and unambiguously shows that

respondent No.7 had never intended to use the said land for

the purpose for which it was granted. Such a resolve of

respondent No.7 makes the transfer of land by way of gift in

its favour highly suspicious and in the context of

circumstances illegal and void.

In the revenue records, i.e. Jamabandi of 1990-91, the

land, the subject matter of the gift deed is shown to be

under the occupation of Forest Department. Learned

counsel for the respondent No.7 has produced before us

Jamabandi pertaining to the aforesaid land of the year 1980-

81, which shows that the aforesaid land was in occupation of

the Gram Panchayat itself. Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat

passed its first resolution on 22.10.1983 and second

resolution on 8.12.1989. No revenue records have been

produced before us to show that the Gram Panchayat was in

possession of the land at the time when action for making

the gift of the land in favour of the respondent No.7 was

initiated and completed. We have reasons to believe that

the land was under the occupation of the Forest Department

because while granting its approval, the State Government

has specifically mentioned in Condition No.6 of its order that

the land shall be got released from the Forest Department

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 29

through proper channel. If the land was not in occupation of

the Forest Department, there was no occasion for the State

Government to mention the aforesaid condition in its order.

Once the land was found to have been used for the

purposes of forest, the provisions of the Indian Forest Act

and the Forest Conservation Act would be attracted, putting

restrictions on de-reservation of the forest or use of the land

for non forest purposes. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980

has been enacted with the object of preventing

deforestation. The provisions of the aforesaid Act are

applicable to all forests. It is true that "forest" has not been

defined under the Act but this Court in T.N. Godavarman

Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India & Ors. [1997 (2) SCC 267]

has held that the word "forest" must be understood

according to its dictionary meaning. It would cover all

statutorily recognised forest whether designated as

reserved, protected or otherwise for the purposes of Section

2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest land"

occurring in Section 2 will include not only the forest as

understood in the dictionary sense but also any area

regarded as forest in the government record irrespective of

the ownership. The provisions of the Forest Conservation

Act are applicable to all forests so understood irrespective of

the ownership or classification thereof. This Court has

issued certain directions and guidelines for the preservation

of forest and its produce in T.N. Godavaraman's case which

are not shown to have been implemented by the

respondent-State.

Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act mandates that

no State Government or authority shall make an order

directing that any forest land or any portion thereof shall

cease to be reserved or any forest land or any portion

thereof may be used for non forest purposes or forest land

or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or

otherwise to any private person or to an authority,

corporation, agency or any other organisation owned and

controlled by the Government or any such land or portion

thereof be cleared of trees which have grown therein -

without the prior approval of the Central Government. The

gifting of land, in the instant case, cannot, in any way, be

termed to be for a forest purpose. Learned counsel

appearing for the State of Haryana showed us a Government

order which had declared the area, covered by gift deeds, as

forest prohibiting the cutting of the trees, declared as forest

though for a limited period of 25 years. It is submitted that

as the period of 25 years was not extended, the land, earlier

declared as forest, had ceased to be a forest land. Such a

plea is contradictory in terms. The State of Haryana is

proved to be conscious of the fact that the land, intended to

be gifted, was either the forest land or property of the Forest

Department regarding which the Condition No.6 was

imposed in its order granting the approval for gifting the

land by the Gram Panchayat to the Trust. It is too late now

in the day for the respondent-State to urge that as

notification declaring the land as forest was not extended

after initial period of 25 years, the same be deemed to not

to be a forest land or land used for the purpose of the forest.

In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is

specifically stated:

"It is submitted that the State Government had

only given approval to the Gram Panchayat for

gifting the land. However, while permitting the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 29

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 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 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 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 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 of 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 2/3rd 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 0.2 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

of land, 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 Panchayath 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 people'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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 29

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 271 kanals 6 marlas and 151 kanals 19 marlas,

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 Gram Panchayat, Bhondsi. The

respondent No.7 has no justification to retain any piece of

the controversial land in its possession and is liable to

deliver its possession to the Gram Panchayat. In view of our

findigns, we set aside and quash the Resolution dated

22.10.1983 and 18.12.1989 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 of

respondent-Trust and direct the delivery of possession of the

land to the Gram Panchayat in the manner specified in this

judgment.

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 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 taken into

account the cost of construction as reflected in the account

books of the respondent No.7 and pay the same to 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 29

Under the circumstances this writ petition is allowed by

making the Rule absolute with the issuance of following

directions:

i) Consequent upon quashing of Gram Panchayat

Resolutions dated 22.10.1983 and 18.10.1997, 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

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.

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 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.

iii) The Committee appointed in terms of direction No.(ii)

shall formulate a scheme 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. 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.

iv) The respondent-State shall appoint another committee

comprising of its Finance Secretary, Chief Engineer of

the PWD, a representative of the 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 of the

account books of the respondent-trust within 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 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.(ii) hereinabove.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 29

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 committee

appointed in terms of direction No. (iv).

vii) That the area of 500 acres of land, taken possession of

by the 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 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.

ix) Under the circumstances of the case we do not issue

any direction for the registration of any criminal case

against the respondent 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.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.

.......................J.

(R.P. Sethi)

.......................J.

(K.G. Balakrishnan)

April 19, 2002