For 40 years, a Haryana-based private education trust that failed to construct a school on a land allotted to it by the State Government came up with a clever idea in the Supreme Court for the sake of reclaiming the prime land. It offered to build a school for 500 poor, underprivileged children at the same plot spread over 76 acre undertaking to bear the education fees of all students for all times to come. Not impressed, the court rejected the offer realising that the proposal was only to camouflage the real purpose — that of retaining the land.
Raunaq Education Foundation had obtained land from the Haryana Government in January 1974 to build a school for residents in the State. Though the land was forest land, the Government acquired it for the public cause and handed over possession to the society in the hope of seeing a school. Years passed and more than a decade later when the gram panchayat sought back the land, the State Government scrapped its own decision to allot the land in September 1988. This led to severe heartburn for the private society which took its fight to the Punjab and Haryana High Court but to no avail. The High Court directed the land to go back to the gram panchayat being of the view that the society held on to public land as private property losing sight of the purpose to build the school within a specified time-frame.
As a final attempt to salvage the prime plot situated at Bari in Sonepat district, the society through senior advocate Kapil Sibal came up with a fresh offer in the Supreme Court. It offered to use the land exclusively to build a school for 500 poor, underprivileged children. It decided to bear all cost towards their education including fees.
Coming as it did from a defaulter society which failed to make any construction on the land for the past 40 years, the Supreme Court became suspicious. It said, “Though any proposal for advancement of poor and underprivileged children is welcome but the background of the matter noticed above shows the track record of the petitioner which renders the proposal suspect.”
The Bench of Justices V Gopala Gowda and Adarsh Goel upheld the State’s decision of September 18, 1988 to retain the said land measuring 76 acre and 5 karnals and vest it back with the gram panchayat. It read through the game of the society whose purpose was to maintain hold on the land situated at a prime location.
Even as per the HC order, the society could keep seven acres of land from its original allotment. The court reasoned that if the petitioner was so concerned about catering to education of poor and needy, it could as well be done on this stretch of land.
The Bench said, “The track record of the petitioner is to take private benefit from land of the village taken over by the State at petitioner’s instance to advance education — a public cause.” Deprecating such conduct on part of the educational trust, the Bench added that granting any individual or private benefit at the cost of public will be contrary to constitutional values to be followed by the State.
laying down the principle for all such future cases, the Bench held, “Once it is found that beneficiary of (an) allotment has abused its position to its advantage and to the disadvantage of the public, this court cannot interfere with the fair order passed by a competent authority resuming the land.”