# B.L. WAD HERA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS - **Citation:** [2002] 3 S.C.R. 226 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2002-04-19 - **Bench:** R.P. Sethi, K.G. Balakrishnan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/b-l-wad-hera-v-union-of-india-and-ors-18592 - **Pages:** 42 ## Headnote ,.... 7 Public Interest Litigation: ... c Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961/Punjab Village Common (Regulations) Rules, 1964/Forest Conservation Act, 1980-Sections 2(g), 3,4,5, 5A and SB/Rules 3(2), 13,10 and 6/Section 2: ) Largesse-Conferment of-By way of grant of land-Legality and validity of-On/acts, Gram Panchayat with approval of State gifted land-To leader D of national stature, a reputed member of Parliament for years and former Prime Minister of India-For purpose of construction of ciVil dispensary and women's Polytechnic-Also another piece of land given for plantation withqut ~- "' any f'ight-Some more land proposed to be gifted for extension of Polytechnic but not approved by State-Petitioner alleging irregularities in the gifts made- ; Writ petition-Held, procedure of auction not followed, no utilisation plan E prepared-Gifts made in favour of persons other than those contemplated under the Section-Gifted land not released from forest department through (; proper channel-Land gifted for purpose contrary to the order of approvalConstruction of dispensary in a village but not on gifted land-Establishing Stree Niketan instead of women's Polytechnic-Gifted land not for forest purposes-All gifts made without complying with conditions imposed in T ~ F " violation of law, thus gifts invalid-Respondent-Trust directed to return land to Gram Panchayat with certain other directions. !- Respondent No. 7 is a leader of national stature, a reputed member of ~ Parliament for years and a former Prime Minister of a country. Gram ' G Panchayat by passing resolution gifted land to Respondent No. 7 for r construction of a civil dispensary which was approved by the State Governi'- ment. Thereafter land was gifted for building Hospital and a Polytechnic for -- women. 500 acres of land was also given for plantation to Trust but without conferring any right upon the Trust. Gram Panchayat again proposed to gift land to Respondent No. 7 for extension of Polytechnic, but the same was not H 226 . ..., -- B.L. W ADHERA v. U.O.l. 227 approved by the State Government. Petitioner alleged that there were certain A irregularities in the manner in which the gifts were made. Hence the present writ petition. In writ petitions before this Court appellants submitted that the transactions involving gifting of the land were against the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It was contended that the land having been recorded as B 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 C even in violation of the approval of the State Government. Further after incorporation of Sections SA and SB, 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 Trost has nothing to do with the transactions by which it has acquired the lands. Neither the inhabitants for the Gram Panchayat has been benefited by the impugned D transactions. State Government justifying its action contended that the land in controversy had been declared as forest land for a limited period and in the absence of extension of period it ceased to be the forest land. E Gram Panchayat submitted that SOO acres of land, after afforestation, has been returned to the State Government as per direction of the Court and also justified the action of the Gram Panchayat in making the gifts of the lands to respondent No. 7. Respondent No. 7 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. If there is any v ## Text _Characters 0–39,807 of 108,862. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39807 for what follows._ - .:.r A B.L. WAD HERA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. APRIL 19, 2002 B [R.P. SETHI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] ,.... 7 Public Interest Litigation: ... c Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961/Punjab Village Common (Regulations) Rules, 1964/Forest Conservation Act, 1980-Sections 2(g), 3,4,5, 5A and SB/Rules 3(2), 13,10 and 6/Section 2: ) Largesse-Conferment of-By way of grant of land-Legality and validity of-On/acts, Gram Panchayat with approval of State gifted land-To leader D of national stature, a reputed member of Parliament for years and former Prime Minister of India-For purpose of construction of ciVil dispensary and women's Polytechnic-Also another piece of land given for plantation withqut ~- "' any f'ight-Some more land proposed to be gifted for extension of Polytechnic but not approved by State-Petitioner alleging irregularities in the gifts made- ; Writ petition-Held, procedure of auction not followed, no utilisation plan E prepared-Gifts made in favour of persons other than those contemplated under the Section-Gifted land not released from forest department through (; proper channel-Land gifted for purpose contrary to the order of approvalConstruction of dispensary in a village but not on gifted land-Establishing Stree Niketan instead of women's Polytechnic-Gifted land not for forest purposes-All gifts made without complying with conditions imposed in T ~ F " violation of law, thus gifts invalid-Respondent-Trust directed to return land to Gram Panchayat with certain other directions. !- Respondent No. 7 is a leader of national stature, a reputed member of ~ Parliament for years and a former Prime Minister of a country. Gram ' G Panchayat by passing resolution gifted land to Respondent No. 7 for r construction of a civil dispensary which was approved by the State Governi'- ment. Thereafter land was gifted for building Hospital and a Polytechnic for -- women. 500 acres of land was also given for plantation to Trust but without conferring any right upon the Trust. Gram Panchayat again proposed to gift land to Respondent No. 7 for extension of Polytechnic, but the same was not H 226 . ..., -- B.L. W ADHERA v. U.O.l. 227 approved by the State Government. Petitioner alleged that there were certain A irregularities in the manner in which the gifts were made. Hence the present writ petition. In writ petitions before this Court appellants submitted that the transactions involving gifting of the land were against the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It was contended that the land having been recorded as B 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 C even in violation of the approval of the State Government. Further after incorporation of Sections SA and SB, 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 Trost has nothing to do with the transactions by which it has acquired the lands. Neither the inhabitants for the Gram Panchayat has been benefited by the impugned D transactions. State Government justifying its action contended that the land in controversy had been declared as forest land for a limited period and in the absence of extension of period it ceased to be the forest land. E Gram Panchayat submitted that SOO acres of land, after afforestation, has been returned to the State Government as per direction of the Court and also justified the action of the Gram Panchayat in making the gifts of the lands to respondent No. 7. Respondent No. 7 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. If there is any violation of the terms of the grant, the appropriate authorities are at liberty F to initiate action against his client. Further all the conditions of the resolutions G of the Gram Panchayat, tile 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 ofa dispensary in the village which stands fully complied with. The condition for H 228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 3 S.C.R. -=.-- . A 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 B 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 and -.? is liable to be dismissed. •-;- I .;. Allowing the writ petition, the Court • c HELD: 1.1. Under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Punjab Village Common (Regulations) Rules, 1964 the Panchayat can use the land in shamlat deb, vested in it under the ,\ct, 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 D the land in shamlat deb has been prepared under Sub-Rule (1) ofRule3. There is nothing on the record to show that any such utilisation plan was prepared warranting action under Sub-Rule (2). If recourse was to be had to the ).__ aforesaid provisions, the utilisation of the land through an agency other than • the Panchayat could be made by leasing out the site and compliance of the 'I conditions specified in Rule 6. In the instant case, no such action appears to E have been taken. [257-D, E] : 1.2. 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 ., " F 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 SA and SB of the Act. Section lS does not authorise the State Government to make Rules with respect to the gift of the land to persons other G than those contemplated under Sections SA and SB of the Act. Any rule which is contrary to t}le 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 provisions of Section SA and SB of the Act read with Rule 13A of the Rules H as the gifts have been made in favour of persons other than those specified in B.L. WADHERA v. U.0.1. 229 the mandatory provisions of Sections SA and SB, the same are void-ab-initio. A There is no denial of the fact that the Rules under the Act were framed in the year 1964 and Sections SA and SB were inserted vide Punjab Act No. 2S ofl976. Prior to the incorporation of the aforesaid sections, the respondentState had a right to gift land out of the shamlat deb for purposes as specified B 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. [2S7-F, G, H; 2S8-A, B; 258-D-F( 1.3. The making of the gift depended upon the compliance of the C conditions, specified in the Government orders. Concededly, the condition 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 that the land,•he 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. D 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 cqnditions of approval has to be deemed to be nonexistent in the eye oflaw not affecting the rights of the original owners of the E land, i.e., Gram Panchayat and its inhabitants. Respondents's counsel could BOt satisfy regarding the legality and validity of the gift deeds without compliance of conditions \'lo. 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. F [2S9-D-GI 1.4. The order of the State Government specifically provided that the shamlat land of the Gram Pancbayat 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 G 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, 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 H 230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 3 S.C.R. A order of approval, renders the gift deed void not affecting the rights of the ~ inhabitants of the Gram Panchayat State Government had specified one of the purposes mentioned in Sub-Rule (I) 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. (260-B, C, E] B 1.5. If the construction of the dispensary in the land gifted to the respondent N~ 7 was felt to be inconvenient for the inhabitants of the village, 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 C managed and manned by the Government cannot be termed to be the compliance of condition of the Government order. The Gram Panchayat had no power, right or jurisdiction to transfer land 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 D No. 7. [260-F, G, H; 261-A] 1.6. College and Polytechinc cannot be equated with the Stree Niketan · allegedly established by respondent No. iwhich is admittedly not recognised by any Government or affiliated to any University. The Cor.nmittee appointed in terms or the Court's Order, in its report, has found, on facts, that the land E is not being used for either a college or polytechinc. 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 ei_ther for a college or for a polytechinc 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 F 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 illegal and void. (261-B, C, D] 1.7. In the revenue records, the subject matter of the gift deed is shown to be unde·r the occupation of Forest Department, Respondent No. 7 has G produced records 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 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 respondent No. 7 was H initiated and completed. There are reasons to believe that the land was under B.L. WADHERA v. U.0.1. 231 ...;. the occupation of the Forest Department because while granting its approval, A the State Government has specifically mentioned in Condition No. 6 of its order that the land shall be got released from the Forest Department through proper channel, If the land was in occupation of the Forest Department, there was no occasion for the State Government to mention the aforesaid condition in its order. [261-E, F, G) B • 1.8. 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 term "forest land" occurring it! Section 2 will include not only the forest as understood in the dictionary sense c 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. D (261-H; 262-A, B, C, D) ..i ~ T.N. Godavarman Thirurnulkpad v. Union of India and Ors., [1997) 2 SCC 267, referred to. 1.9. Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act mandates that no State E Government or authority shall make an order directing that any forest land or any portion thereqf shall cease to be reserved or any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for non forest purposes of 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 F "' :r 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 In the instant case gifting of land, cannot in any way termed to be for a forest purpose. [262-D, E, F) 1.10. The gifted land has not been utilised by respondent No. 7 for any G commercial purpose but 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 Panch'!Y"t in favour of Respondent No. 7. The purpose of the respondent-Trust, the welfare of the people and the npliftment of the inhabitants of the Gram Panchayat may be laudable but under the cloak of those purpose the property of the people cannot be H 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 3 S.C.R. A permitted to be utilised for the personal leisure and pleasure of some individuals including the Chairman of respondent No. 7 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. [263-D, E; 264-C, DJ B 1.11. The gift deeds executed in favour of Respondent No. 7 are not referabl~ 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. Respondent No.7 has no justification to retain any piece of the controversial land in its possession and C is liable to deliver its possession to the Gram Panchayat. Also the argument that after the execution of the gift deeds 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 is not accepted. The interests of justice would be met by directing the payment of the amounts D spent by respondent No.7 in the construction of the structures, though respondent No. 7 cannot claim any advantage for usurping the said land The resolution dated 22.10.1983 and 8.12.1989 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 is set aside and E quashed. [264-G, H; 265-B-D; A-BJ - F CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 179 of 1999. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) Kapil Sibal, V.A. Mohta, U.U. Lalit, (AC), Brajesh Kalappa, Dr. S.K. Verma, Ms. Minoti Mukherjee, Gopal Krushna, M.K. Choudhary, Ms. Ranjana Narayan, Ashutosh Kumar, Atul Kumar, P. Ravish Chandra, Sumeer Kumar Srivastava, Neeraj Kumar Jain, Bharat Singh, J.P. Dhanda, S. Wasim A. Qadri, T.V. Ratnam and Ms. Sushma Suri and Mahabir Singh for the appearing G parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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 H of the country is accused of usurping about 600 acres of land in Village • .j -/- - T ·' - - B.L. WADHERAv. U.0.1. [SETHI,J.] 233 Bhondsi of the .State of Haryana by manipulations and resort to exercise of A 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 B prayed that as the r~pondent 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 C 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 iii. 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 D 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 I 0 acres of land belonging to the Border Security Force. Instead of constructing the Hospital and the Polytechnic for women, E 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 I 0 acres of land bordering one end of the Firing Range of the BSF was· occupied by the respondent 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. F 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 Panchayat, 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 G 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 H 234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 3 S.C.R. · A 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 B 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 l 0th . 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 C 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 D 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. E 7 by fencing it from all sides. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents l 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 F 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 G 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 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 H month of March/ April, 1991. Matter was reported to the Deputy Commissioner, B.L. WADHERA v. U.O.l. [SETHI, J.] 235 --< Gurgaon time and again but no action was taken till 15.2.2000. 25th Batallion A ofBSF 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 B of notice by this Court on 13.8.1999. '1 / In their counter affidavits respondents 3 and 4, filed on 5.4.2000, the State of ll.aryana and Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, Haryana, have stated that vide Resolution No. 55 dated 23.10.1983 land measuring 33 acres 7 C 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 D 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 E 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 kanals 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 kanals and 15 marlas of F 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 G 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 11.12.1990 resolving to gift 16 acres 7 kanals and 9 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 H 236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R. A 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, B 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 land is not 12 crores as alleged by the petitioner. In the amended counter affidavit filed on lst May, 2000 on behalf of C 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 D 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 11.12.1990 resolving to gift 16 acres 7 kanals and 8 marals was never acted E 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 a~d 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 F 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 tri>es and making the Aravalli Hills green. The action of the Gram Panchayat is stated to be in accordance with law. G In the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 7, Shri Chander Shekhar, the President 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 H the correctness of the write-up. The allegations made in the petition are stated '• ' .. I / B.L. WADHERA v. U.0.1. [SETHI, J.] 237 to be incorrect. The writ petition has been termed to be a "classic illustration A 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 B Rajiv Gandhi, the former Prime Minister of India 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 WllS persecuting the deponent to settle his old C scores. It is submitted that the petitioner be dealt with severely for having misused and abused the process of law by institJting 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 SubDivisional Officer to suspend the action of the Gram Panchayat. None of the villagers who are stated to be the beneficiaries of the programmes undertaken D 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, E 1983 with the Registrar of Delhi as a Public Charitable Trust vide Registration No. 3428, Block No. 4, Volume No. I IOI. 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 F life irrespective of caste, creed, sex and religion. The Trust was established after the conclusion of the Pad Y atra 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 G 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 Res~lution No. 55 dated 22. l 0.1983, 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 Lanqs Act, 1964. It was resolved that the sanction H ' 238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R. 'r A 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 B 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 c 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 D 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 E 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 which was returned as respondent No. 7 ---,- F ' 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 G 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 ·--;r 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 H tank for water in the said village. The Trust undertook afforestation - B.L. W ADHERA v. U.0.I. [SETHI, J.] 239 . -~ programmes and planted the trees, nearby villages were also supplied with A 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 B 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 c 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 ofHaryana accorded its approval · 1 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. D ;. 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 amouqting 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 E 'r 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 I alleged to have been encroached upon by the Trust is stated to have been r transferred by its owners in favour of the Trust. The deponent says "I say that F 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 G 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. 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 H 240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R. A 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 Trus! 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 B of Rural Development, Government of India and this grant has been used for raising nursery, plan!ing of trees, etc. The said patch of land w