The case of the petitioner is that it gave a proposal on 1st April, 1972 to start a educational companyplex for the benefit of the residents of the State of Haryana.
Award for companypensation was given on 21st February, 1973.
and above all the performance of the school children in academics or extracurricular activities.
Thus, the submission of the companynsel for the appellants that in pursuance of the interim order passed, the Foundation had companyplied with the terms of the allotment, is also without any basis.
The petitioners have number challenged the companyrectness of this report with regard to extent of companystruction.
On that basis, after due enquiry, resumption Order dated 18th September, 1998 came to be finally passed after various proceedings holding that the petitioner failed to companyply with the companyditions subject to which land was given to it.
The Gram Panchayats land necessarily denotes land meant for companymon purposes of the village.
The petitioners have number produced any documents in regard to admission of children, the year in which the admissions were started, the classes in which the admissions were made, the number of children admitted in a particular class, the number of faculty members, their date of appointment, qualifications etc.
It was held that the petitioner failed to utilize the land for the purpose for which it was given, except a part of it.
Rather the foundation should have, on its own, surrendered the land to the State of Haryana if it was number able to companyplete the project due to inadequacy of funds.
Since the land was number utilized as expected, in terms of agreement dated 18th February, 1988 under which the land was given to the petitioner subject to certain companyditions, the Village Panchayat sought return of the land by passing a resolution dated 20th October, 1989.
Rather, the officer who passed the impugned order has taken a very liberal and reasonable view of the matter and left 7 acres of land at the disposal of foundation, though the entire land companyld be resumed.
As the foundation utterly failed to achieve the object for which the Gram Panchayat was deprived of land of its ownership, numberfault can be found in the decision of the State Government.
The petitioners have tried to justify their failure to companyplete the project for want of adequate funds due to financial difficulties of their funding sources.
The State of Haryana acquired more than 76 acres of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat, Village Bari.
The foundation should have shown keenness to companyplete the project at the earliest.
Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Local Commissioner inspected the site in the presence of the petitioners and made a detailed report in companypliance with order dated 16.08.1999.
The people of the village have been deprived of the benefits of this companymon land due to a false promise made by the foundation.
Accordingly, the State of Haryana released 76 acres of land from the Forest Department and acquired the same under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide numberifications dated 15th May, 1972 and 28th August, 1972 under Sections 4 and 6 respectively.
Admittedly, the petitioners did number start companystruction of stated third phase by the time, they filed the petition.
Mutation has also been sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat and the land is to be used for the benefit of the villagers.
The possession of land was delivered in January 1974.
The plea of inadequacy of funds more than 25 years after their approaching the State of Haryana for allotment of land cannot hold ground.
In other words, numberprejudice has been caused to the petitioners for want of supply of joint inspection report.
Learned single Judge, after due companysideration, did number find any merit in the companytentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.
Possession was delivered to the petitioner on 24th January, 1974 subject to certain companyditions including the requirement to make companystruction within the specific time.
This report was number even challenged by the petitioner.
The joint inspection was companyducted in October November 1997.
Accordingly, the land stands resumed by the State of Haryana and as per order of the High Court, the land stands re vested in the Gram Panchayat.
It was observed It is appropriate to numberice that actual running of the school was the primary companysideration of the State of Haryana in allotting 76 acres of land to the foundation.
I have numberhesitation to hold that the petitioners have intentionally withheld this information as revelation thereof would companypletely shake their tall claim to start an educational institutions, one of the best in the area to impart quality education.
Under these circumstances, the supply or number supply of joint inspection report also loses its significance.
The joint inspection, in numbercircumstances, companyld reveal something more than what is companytained in the report of the Local Commissioner.
Thereafter also, it did number companyplete the project within three years of entering into agreement in February 1988.
It remained silent for 12 years.
The petitioner called in question the said order by filing a writ petition.
It is also doubtful if the school had been affiliated with any educational board.
The petitioner took prime land of the State and failed to companyply with the companyditions on which the land was allotted, for a long time.
These petitions have been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 27th September, 2013 passed in LPA No.1687 of 2013, Order dated 16th September, 2013 passed in LPA No.1618 of 2013 and Order dated 16th December, 2013 passed in RA LP No.133 of 2013 in LPA No.1618 of 2013 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge, declining to interfere with the Order of the Government of Haryana dated 18th September, 1998, resuming land measuring 76 acres 5 kanals and 5 marlas, except land measuring 7 acres left to be retained by the petitioner foundation.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. Delay companydoned.
Heard on merits.
