LPA No.1618 of 2013 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1618 of 2013 (O & M) Date of decision:16.09.2013 Raunaq Education Foundation & another .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana & others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr.Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.
1. The present intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.07.2013 passed by the Learned Single Judge, in CWP No.16493 of 1998, which was dismissed. Challenge in the said writ petition, by the appellant- Foundation, was to an order dated 18.09.1998 (Annexure P19), passed by respondent No.1 whereby, it had allowed the Foundation to retain 7 acres of land out of 75 acres 5 kanals and 5 marlas, which had been initially allotted to the appellant for setting up an educational complex and had resumed the balance land on account of non utilising the same.
2. The learned Single Judge, after adverting to the facts of the case and the submissions made before it, rejected the first plea of the appellants that it had not been supplied copies of the documents referred to in the show cause notice dated 24.09.1997 (Annexure P10), on the basis of which, the allotment had been cancelled on the ground that joint inspection of the site had been conducted after issuance of the show cause notice and therefore, the submission that the Foundation was prejudiced by the non-supply of documents was without any Sailesh Ranjan 2013.10.09 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1618 of 2013 (O & M) -2- basis. It was noticed that this Court had appointed a Local Commissioner vide order dated 16.08.1999 and the said report had never been challenged and that 7 acres of land, which had been allotted, was the area under construction, proposed for building the senior secondary school, as per norms fixed by the State and the appellants had failed to adhere to the terms and conditions since the Foundation was to use the land and construct the building within 3 years from the date of transfer of the allotment, which could be extended for a period of one year, due to which the impugned order had been passed. The plea of personal hearing, as per the terms of the allotment, was also rejected on the ground that in the facts and circumstances of the case, an opportunity of hearing could not be construed as an opportunity of personal hearing. Show cause notice had been issued and there was no mala fide on the part of the State and there was no material as to why the appellants had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement and the reasons for not adhering to the purpose for which the allotment had been made.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that as per Clause 3(i), the Government could not make an order under Clause 3 (c) or Clause 3(f) for reverting the land back to it on the ground of non- utilization, for breach of contract, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. Secondly, it was submitted that by virtue of the interim order dated 14.05.2001, this Court had permitted construction to be raised, subject to the result of the writ petition, and therefore, the order of cancellation of allotment of part of the land and upholding of it by the Learned Single Judge, was not justified.
4. After hearing counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for. The facts in the present case are interesting to note as Sailesh Ranjan how the appellant got allotted the public land on the assurance that it would set 2013.10.09 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1618 of 2013 (O & M) -3- up an educational hub, and then failed to carry out its promises. The Trust, in its application dated 01.04.1972 (Annexure P1), had proposed to start an educational complex for the benefit of the residents of the State of Haryana. Accordingly, the land measuring 76 acres, situated in Village Bara, had been got released from the Forest Department and thereafter, acquired on 15.05.1972 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act'), for public purpose, for setting up an educational complex. Possession was delivered to the Foundation on 24.01.1974 and it paid the entire compensation of `3,26,340/-. Thereafter, no action was taken towards the utilization of the land for the purpose for which it had been got released and acquired and only on 20.01.1986, request was made for executing the conveyance deed in respect of the said land. Accordingly, on 26.02.1988, an agreement was entered into as per Section 41 of the Act, for transfer of the said land wherein, it was specified that land was to be used for educational complex and not for any other purpose. The construction of the building was to be done within 3 years from the date of transfer and power was given to extend the time, not exceeding 1 year at a time and the total period was fixed as 3 years for the extension, after the Government was satisfied on making such an enquiry that the appellants were prevented by some reasons, beyond its control, for constructing the building within the specified time-frame. An application for permission to construct was filed on 15.02.1990 (Annexure P6) to the District Town Planner, Sonepat and reply dated 19.05.1990 (Annexure P7) was received that permission was not required.
5. Apparently, the Gram Panchayat, Bari was aggrieved against the non-utilization of the land for 15 years for the purpose for which it had been acquired and the false promise held out by the Foundation and had passed a resolution dated 20.10.1989 that the land should be handed back to the Sailesh Ranjan Panchayat. The said resolution reads as under:
2013. 10.09 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1618 of 2013 (O & M) -4- “A resolution was presented and passed that about 76 acres land which was acquired from the Gram Panchayat by the Education Institute, BST Ganaur for Raunaq Education Institute on this land even after passing of 15-20 years the above said institute has not started any construction work over it and using it for other benefits, which does not agree with the conditions of the acquirement of this land. Hence the Panchayat has decided that the land should be handed over to the Panchayat and that amount received by Panchayat in lieu of that will be returned to the Institute by the Panchayat. A copy of the resolution is sent to the concerned Deptt. of the Haryana Govt. for necessary action, with a request that the land should be handed over back to the Panchayat at the earliest. Agreed.”. 6. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ganaur inspected the premises and submitted a report dated 08.07.1991 to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat which reads as under: “Reference to your office endst.No.1137/DRF-147 Dated 15.6.91 and No.1223/DRAW-2-147 dated 26.6.91 on the subject cited above.
2. In this connection as per your orders the site was inspected and it was found that in the school there are 4 class rooms and the 3 other rooms and toilets built up. But there are no doors and windows to the rooms and nor the wall are plastered. The plan of the constructed part of the building is attached.
3. On the spot it came to notice that a total land of 85 acres was acquired, out of which about 22 acres of land is lying vacant and on the rest of it, eucalyptus trees are growing. D.A.:- The plan of the school building.”. 7. Thereafter, on 28.10.1994 (Annexure P8, the Foundation wrote to the District Education Officer that the 11th & 12th classes had been going on in the educational complex for the year 1993-94 and the construction of first phase of the educational complex was to completed by March, 1992 and efforts were being made to tie up or establish the management/technical institute of international repute.
8. Sailesh Ranjan 2013.10.09 13:00 Since nothing substantial was done, a show cause notice dated I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1618 of 2013 (O & M) -5- 24.09.1997 (Annexure P10) was issued for non-utilization of the land on the ground that only 18 kanals and 2 marlas was actually used for the purpose of school building and that 23 years had elapsed since possession had been taken and that resolution had been passed by the Village Panchayat on 14.10.1996, requesting the State to get the remaining land released. The land was not being used for the purpose for which it had been given to the Foundation and it was being misutilized for its own benefit in flagrant breach of the terms of the agreement.
9. The Foundation submitted its reply dated 13.10.1997 (Annexure P11), asking for the details of the documents which were mentioned in the show cause notice and by the reply dated 14.10.1996, they were asked to collect the same from the Deputy Commissioner's office, Sonepat. Thereafter, a detailed reply dated 22.10.1997 (Annexure P14) was submitted wherein plea taken was that the land was 4 to 5 feet deep and was “banjar qadim”. and it had taken time to develop the same and construction work for first phase had been taken up which was completed in March, 1992 and the construction of the second phase started in 1994 and was completed in May, 1997. There was a financial crunch and the company-M/s BST Manufacturing, under the management of the founder Trustees of Raunaq Education Foundation, which was the major source of funds, was placed under lock out and therefore, a set back was received to the grants so received by the Foundation. Prayer was also made that a joint inspection of the site be carried out and that the trees had been planted to ensure proper green environment and accordingly, an opportunity of hearing was asked for.
10. In pursuance of the reply, a joint inspection was also got conducted on 08.11.1997 and thereafter, the impugned order dated 18.09.1998 was passed. Respondent No.1, while passing the order, took into account the reply of the Sailesh Ranjan appellant and came to the conclusion that possession had been taken wayback on 2013.10.09 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1618 of 2013 (O & M) -6- 04.01.1974 and the agreement was executed only on 26.02.1988. The Foundation had remained silent for 14 years and was responsible for the delay in executing the agreement. Even as per the agreement, 3 years time had been given to complete the construction but there was no school building worth the name, as per the resolution dated 20.10.1989, passed by the Gram Panchayat, as has been reproduced above in paragraph No.5.
11. The objection of the Foundation that the Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to pass a resolution was also rejected on the ground that the acquisition was for the public interest and Gram Panchayat informed the Government to act, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. The Deputy Commissioner had every right to see the public interest and there were successive reports of the Deputy Commissioner that the land had not been utilized for the purpose for which it had been acquired. The Foundation had never managed to arrange the funds, neither it asked for extension of time, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and it was only on 15.02.1990 that the site plans had been submitted and therefore, there was lack of will and intention to provide education to the people of the area. Accordingly, a finding was recorded that there was no will or intention and the Foundation had failed to establish the educational complex, even after lapse of 23 years and apart from the 7 acres of land, in which the school was running, the rest of the land was resumed. The operational part of the order reads as under: “From the above discussions, it is clear that the Foundation has no will, no initiative, no intention and no funds to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement. It has further sold the crops of eucalyptus trees for its benefits. Only 9th to 12th classes have been recently started in which only 175 to 200 students are studying. There are no meaningful facilities to the student or the staff. No play ground has been developed as per norms. Since 1989 onwards, successive DCs of Sonepat had been sending Sailesh Ranjan 2013.10.09 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and reports against the Foundation that no worth studying education integrity of this document LPA No.1618 of 2013 (O & M) -7- complex has been constructed. This fact has been further proved by the joint inspection report of D.S.E. dated 8.11.97. Thus the Foundation has miserably failed to establish a good Educational Complex even after lapse of 23 years. As is clear from the inspection report, for school purposes only 18 kanal 2 marla of the acquired land has been used and 4 tubewells and construction near these tubewells are not meant for school purposes rather these tubewells are used for watering the eucalyptus trees for the benefit of Foundation. A small quarter for the residence of Principal and two small quarters in another corner of acquired land are lying unoccupied. There is, therefore, no logic for allowing the Foundation to keep unutilized land for any longer period in the name of public purpose of public interest. In view of the above discussions, the Foundation has clearly contravened the provisions of clause 3 (A&C) of the Agreement which was duly signed by the Foundation on 18.2.88 with the State Government. However, keeping in view the overall requirement of a senior secondary school of this type which the Foundation is running presently the norm of the Education Department is of 7 acres and accordingly land comprised in Khasra Nos. 99 22 (4-22) 23 (8-0) 24 (8-0) 25 (7-12) 102 2 (2-10) 3 (8-0) 4 (8-0) 5 (7-12) 7 (1-14) Total measuring 7 acres under and near school building is allowed to be retained by the Foundation and remaining land measuring acres kanals marla situated in village Bari Tehsil Gannaur District Sonepat as per details given in the Annexure 8 is resumed and vested back in the State of Haryana to be handed over back to Gram Panchayat, Village Bari as per provisions of clause 3(f) of the Agreement. However, the Foundation would be entitled to the proportionate compensation as has been paid for the acquisition of the said land under clause 3(f) of the agreement. The Foundation is further directed to remove and dispose of in its own benefit the structures constructed on the resumed land and all machinery and other fixture there on within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the resumption order and if the Foundation fails to remove such constructions, machinery and other fixtures etc. within given Sailesh Ranjan 2013.10.09 13:00 periods these constructions etc. shall vest in the Government I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1618 of 2013 (O & M) -8- (State of Haryana) on the date next following the date of expiry of the aforesaid period of 30 days.”. 12. Thus, from the sequence of events, the submission of the counsel for the appellants that Clause 3 has been violated regarding the opportunity of being heard in the matter, cannot be held to be correct. Clause 3(i) reads as under: “3(i) Where the Foundation commits a breach of any terms of the agreement, the Govt. shall not make an order under Clause 3(a) or 3(f) above unless the society has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter.”. 13. The State, after being informed that such a huge chunk of land, which the appellants had managed to get acquired for setting up an educational complex, was not being utilized for the purpose for which it had been acquired, put the appellants to notice after getting the site inspection done. As per the reply submitted, another joint inspection was done on 08.11.1997, before passing the impugned order. The terms of the allotment were noticed and it was further noticed that the appellant had never applied for extension of time, after the period of 3 years had expired, from the date of transfer of the land to the Foundation. The transfer had been effected on 26.02.1988 and as a sequence of events show that possession had been taken on 24.01.1974 and the Gram Panchayat had passed the first resolution on 20.10.1989, bringing to the notice of the Government that the land was not being utilized for the purpose for which it had been acquired. It was only after that the Trust submitted its site plan on 26.12.1990, the SDO had inspected the site on 08.07.1991 and submitted a report to the Government that only four classrooms and three other rooms and toilets had been built and there were no doors and windows to the rooms nor the walls were plastered. Eucalyptus trees had been growing on the land acquired and 22 acres of land was lying vacant. It was in such circumstances that the order of resumption had been passed, after taking into account the lack of will on the part Sailesh Ranjan 2013.10.09 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1618 of 2013 (O & M) -9- of the appellants.
14. A perusal of Clause 3(i) would show that opportunity of being heard in the matter was to be given. This opportunity cannot necessarily be stretched to the extent that a personal hearing be required and it was for the Foundation to demonstrate, before the Learned Single Judge or before this Court, as to how prejudice has been caused on account of alleged denial. In the facts of the present case, the show cause notice was issued for non-utilization of the land and detailed reply was received in which it was admitted that the company, which the source of funds, was under lockout and therefore, the Foundation was not able to carry out the mandatory requirements, as per the allotment letter. In pursuance of the said reply, even a joint inspection was got conducted and the factual report was gathered as to what was the correct position of the site. The Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. K.S.Gandhi 1991 (2) SCC716 while examining the principles of natural justice and their violations, held that the applicability of the principles of natural justice is not a rule of thumb or a straitjacket formula and it has to be followed as an abstract proposition of law. Relevant observation reads as under: “From this perspective, the question is whether omission to record reasons vitiates the impugned order or is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The omnipresence and omniscience of the principle of natural justice acts as deterrence to arrive at arbitrary decision in flagrant infraction of fair play. But the applicability of the principles of natural justice is not a rule of thumb or a straight jacket formula as an abstract proposition of law. It depends on the facts of the case nature of the inquiry and the effect of the order/decision on the rights of the person and attendant circumstances. It is seen from the record and is not disputed, that all the students admitted, the factum of fabrication and it was to his or her advantage and that the subject/subjects in which fabrication was committed belong to him or her.”
. In the present case, the Foundation has failed to show as to what prejudice has Sailesh Ranjan 2013.10.09 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1618 of 2013 (O & M) -10- been caused to it on account of violation of the principles of natural justice and its entitlement to be heard in person. As per the terms of the allotment, the Foundation was given an opportunity of being heard in the matter and the term cannot be stretched to such an extent that it required personal hearing by the concerned officer, before passing the order.
15. The submission that the appellants had asked for a personal hearing and as per the terms of the agreement, it was entitled to be heard in person, in the facts and circumstances, is not justified. The appellant has failed to show as to what prejudice had been caused to it and merely on technical infringement, it cannot succeed. The show cause notice, having been issued to it on the basis of the complaints received and the absence of any mala fide against those taking action and the inability of the appellants to produce any cogent material, would not be a ground for interference in the present case. The Learned Single Judge had already examined in detail that no effort was made by the appellants to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement and no material had been placed before the authority concerned or even before the Learned Single Judge, to that extent, as to how the appellants have been prejudiced. The Apex Court in M/s A.S.Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & others 2013 (3) JT316 while examining the said proposition of the violation of natural justice, held that where termination of the contract was on the ground of violation of the terms of contract, the Court would examine and see whether the aggrieved party had suffered on account of any prejudice or violation. Only technical infringement of the rules would not be a ground to interfere in the decision and remand the case on the sole ground that the principles of natural justice had been violated. Relevant portion of the observations read as under:
“8. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that termination of the Sailesh Ranjan contract between the parties was legally bad not only because the 2013.10.09 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and principles of natural justice requiring a fair hearing to the appellant integrity of this document LPA No.1618 of 2013 (O & M) -11- were not complied with but also because there was no real basis for the respondent-authority to hold that the appellant had committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the contract warranting its termination. We find no merit in either one of the contentions. The reasons are not far to see. Rules of natural justice, it is by now fairly well settled, are not rigid, immutable or embodied rules that may be capable of being put in straitjacket nor have the same been so evolved as to apply universally to all kind of domestic tribunals and enquiries. What the Courts in essence look for in every case where violation of the principles of natural justice is alleged is whether the affected party was given reasonable opportunity to present its case and whether the administrative authority had acted fairly, impartially and reasonably. The doctrine of audi alteram partem is thus aimed at striking at arbitrariness and want of fair play. Judicial pronouncements on the subject have, therefore, recognised that the demands of natural justice may be different in different situations depending upon not only the facts and circumstances of each case but also on the powers and composition of the Tribunal and the rules and regulations under which it functions. A Court examining a complaint based on violation of rules of natural justice is entitled to see whether the aggrieved party had indeed suffered any prejudice on account of such violation. To that extent there has been a shift from the earlier thought that even a technical infringement of the rules is sufficient to vitiate the action. Judicial pronouncements on the subject are a legion. We may refer to only some of the decisions on the subject which should in our opinion suffice. xxxx xxxx xxxx 15. Coming to the case at hand we find that the termination of the contract between the parties was preceded by a show-cause notice issued to the appellant and a hearing provided to it by the competent authority. The show-cause notice issued to the appellant on 24th November, 2006 enclosed with it all relevant documents including the complaints received against the appellant from various quarters and a copy of the report submitted by the agency engaged for verifying the allegations against the appellant. The appellant had unsuccessfully challenged the show-cause notice in Writ Petition No.6338 of 2006, before the High Court. The High Court had while refusing to interfere in the matter directed the Sailesh Ranjan appellant to submit a reply to the notice. The appellant had 2013.10.09 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1618 of 2013 (O & M) -12- accordingly appeared before the authority on 12th January, 2007, submitted its written statement and was heard in support of its case that it had not committed any default. In the reply or at the hearing, the appellant had not alleged any mala fide, bias or prejudice against the officers dealing with the matter or the agency employed by them for collecting and verifying facts. Principles of natural justice thus stood substantially complied with. The contention that the appellant should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements had been recorded by the agency in the course of its inquiry and verification was rightly rejected by the High Court keeping in view the nature of the inquiry which was primarily in the realm of contract, aimed at finding out whether the appellant had committed any violation of the contractual stipulations between the parties. Issue of a show-cause notice and disclosure of material on the basis of which action was proposed to be taken against the appellant was in compliance with the requirement of fairness to the appellant who was likely to be affected by the proposed termination. Absence of any allegation of mala fides against those taking action as also the failure of the appellant to disclose any prejudice, all indicated that the procedure was fair and in substantial, if not strict, compliance with the requirements of Audi Alteram Partem. The first limb of the challenge mounted by the appellant, therefore, fails and is hereby rejected.”. 16. Accordingly, keeping in view the above quoted observations, this Court is of the opinion that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants by denial of the right of personal hearing once the material placed by it before the authority had been duly considered.
17. The second submission made by the counsel for the appellants that it had raised construction upon the land and the Learned Single Judge had not considered the said fact is without any basis, for the reasons which are given below. Order dated 14.05.2001 whereby the Learned Single Judge of this Court granted permission for construction, subject to result of the writ petition, reads as under: Sailesh Ranjan 2013.10.09 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1618 of 2013 (O & M) -13- “Mr.Sibal prays for ten days' time to place on record the details in regard to time-frame within which the construction of the School building shall be completed as also other related matters. Allowed as prayed for. To come up for further arguments on 29.5.2001. In the meantime, order dated 24.1.2001 whereby status quo in regard to possession and construction as it existed on that date was ordered to be maintained, is hereby modified to the extent that construction, if any raised, shall be subject to the result of this writ petition. Order Dasti.”. 18. A perusal of the said order would go on to show that the construction, if any raised, would be subject to the result of the writ petition. In pursuance of the said order, the appellants filed CM No.3306 of 2009 wherein, vide Annexures P25 & P26, the utilization of the said 76 acres of land was sought to be shown. A perusal of the said documents would also go on to show that apart from the school which had been running on the 7 acres of land, which has not been resumed, no steps have been taken for the proper utilization of bringing up an educational complex on the basis of which the land had been allotted. The Learned Single Judge had rightly observed that the authorities have taken a very liberal view and the show cause notice was issued for the resumption of the other land apart from which the school was being run. Thereafter also, by filing CM No.11654 of 2012, affidavit dated 23.08.2012 of Shri S.K.Sharma, one of the Trustees of the Foundation had been brought on record which reads as under: “Apollo International School is a co-educational, residential, air-conditioned, English medium school for Classes 3 to 12. It prides itself on being school with a difference. A school where everyday is a joyful learning experience with high standards of teaching. The school is managed and established by the Raunaq Education Foundation under the vision and inspiration of Sh.O.S.Kanwar a renowned industrialist and Chairman and Managing Director of Apollo Tyres Limited. Sh.O.S.Kanwar views Sailesh Ranjan the school as an opportunity to repay his company's debt to the 2013.10.09 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1618 of 2013 (O & M) -14- society. In the last academic year 2011-12, saw a new team of senior management introduced to the school. This was with an attempt to take an already well established school to a higher level. Mrs. Allison Pyster, an educationist with 26 years of experience behind her which includes both national and international curriculums and a former Principal of Lancers International School, Gurgaon was appointed. Along with her Sh. Mahesh Pandey, Bursar, Administrator with over 15 years of experience and who formerly is from The Asian School, Dehradun was also appointed. Sh.Hector Pyster, Professor, teacher and counsellor who has worked in several convent schools including St. Columba's School, New Delhi was also appointed. Apollo International School received Cambridge authorization in June 2012, making it a truly international school and is only international school in the area of Sonepat to Panipat offering the check point examination to Classes 6, 7 and 8 in English, Science and Mathematics as well as IGCSE examination for Classes 9 to 10. It may be useful to submit here that in the CBSE Board exams of Class 10 and 12 the school has a 100% pass result which no compartments. Apollo International School has been able to attract a better level of internationally trained staff members from premier international institutions like Pathways World School, Bangalore International School, Lancers International School etc. Naturally the offshoot of this has been an improvement in teaching standards and the quality of education imparted is of a superior level than earlier. With new policies such as language policy, admission policy, academic policy and definite systems coming into play, naturally the discipline of the school has also improved by leaps and bounds and this has had a very positive effect on the ethos and moral of the school. With the growth of the school in all areas, not the least being the new classes of Cambridge IGCSE and Humanities (Class XI) the school has constructed 3 new Porto cabins to accommodate the students. The swimming pool has been renovated and reconstructed as per govt. norms. The school Principal was honoured with a certificate of Sailesh Ranjan 2013.10.09 13:00 recognition and appreciation by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1618 of 2013 (O & M) -15- Ganaur, district Sonepat. Hostels and living accommodation for the students and the staff have been made even more comfortable than earlier. The safety, security and hygiene are the key priorities in the hostels. A special Tuck shop was inaugurated for the students' recreation times within the last few months. A revamped computer laboratory with 25 new LCD computers was granted to the school with the blessings of the Sh. O.S.Kanwar. The outdated systems were thus replaced with state of the art computers. This was for the higher classes. So far as the old computers were concerned, they were donated to the wards of IVth class employees as a welfare measure. The above are the changes which have happened in the very recent past for the benefit of the school and its students. A profile of the school in a published brochure which is self-speaking is annexed herewith as Annexure P/27. Also are attached with the present affidavit a few photographs showing the various activities being carried on in the school. A compact disc can be shown to this Hon'ble Court on a medium, if so directed by this Hon'ble Court and as permitted. A site plan showing the utilization of the area in question and the proposed utilization is annexed herewith as Annexure P/28.”. 19. Thus, from the reading of the said affidavit also, which had been filed on 26.08.2012, nothing has been brought on record to show that any such utilization has been done regarding the setting up of an educational complex. The affidavit only pertains to the efforts made regarding the administration of the school and does not talk about utilization of the huge chunk of land for any further expansion for the purpose of setting of an educational complex. The site plan which has been attached alongwith the said affidavit goes on to show that there is a proposed boys and girls hostel to be set up, a proposed Apollo Institute of Management and Studies. Thus, the submission of the counsel for the appellants that in pursuance of the interim order passed, the Foundation had complied with the terms of the allotment, is also without any basis. The Sailesh Ranjan 2013.10.09 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1618 of 2013 (O & M) -16- observations of the Learned Single Judge that the objects for which the land was acquired were not met and the Gram Panchayat was deprived of its ownership due to the false promise made by the Foundation for bringing education to the residents of the State of Haryana, are absolutely justified.
20. Another factor which is to be taken into consideration is that in pursuance of the resumption, the Gram Panchayat had also submitted a bank draft of `2,76,548/- vide letter dated 16.10.1998, regarding the cost of the land which had been resumed and in pursuance of which, mutation had also been entered in favour of the Gram Panchayat. As per the written statement of respondent No.5- Gram Panchayat, the said amount had been accepted by the appellants and they had taken possession. No replication to the written statement, filed by respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat, was filed and thus, the Trust has also retained the said amount for all this period.
21. Accordingly, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Learned Single Judge, upholding the resumption, which would warrant interference in appeal. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE1609.2013 (JASBIR SINGH) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh Ranjan 2013.10.09 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document