Holding

The Supreme Court held that the land could not be denotified and must remain subject to acquisition, as releasing it would disturb the required buffer zone and development scheme.

Summary

Dharam Pal Goel purchased about one bigha of land in Gurgaon and built a school on it in 1985. The State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire the land for the public purpose of developing sectors, followed by a declaration under Section 6. Goel challenged the acquisition, arguing that the land served a public purpose of education and should be denotified. The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed his writ petition, leading to a special leave appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ordered an inspection, whose report highlighted the need for a 165‑foot buffer zone along the adjacent national highway, leaving only 135 feet available and indicating that the remaining land was essential for the development plan. Consequently, the Court held that releasing any part of the land would disturb the scheme and therefore no direction to delete the land from acquisition could be given. The appeal was dismissed and the acquisition stood.

Issues considered

Whether land occupied by a school constitutes a public purpose that warrants denotification from acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether the requirement of a buffer zone along a national highway precludes the release of the appellant's land from the acquisition for sector development.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 4(1), s. 6

Subjects

Land acquisitionPublic purposeDenotificationBuffer zoneSchoolLand Acquisition Act 1894Supreme CourtHaryana

Judgment

\
/
DHARAM PAL GOEL (DEAD) BY LRS. A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JANUARY 13, 1997

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :-Land acquisition-Public pwpose-
Denotification.of acquired land-Pennissibility of-Appella11t-landow11er pur-
chased land and constmcted school thereon-Initiation of proceedings for
acquisition of land for a public pwpose viz. development of sectors-Wiitfiled C
• by appellant-His contention that the acquisition of the land for the public
pwpose was not cmrect. since he intended to· se1ve. another public pwpose,
namely establishing a school for the children of the locality dismissed-Ap-
peal--Inspection directed by Supreme Cowt-Report-Report indicating that
release of part land not feasible because of creation of Buffer zone-Held in
such circumstances direction for release of pmt land was not expedient. D
.CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 317 of
1997.

. From the Judgment and Order dated :ZS.8.93 of the Punjab & E
Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 2960 of 1990.

P.C. Jain and Ms. Indu Goswamy for the Appellant.

Prem Malhotra for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : F
~ ' :
"
Leave granted. Th_is appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the Punjab High Court, made on September 25, 1993 in Writ Petition
No. 2960 of 19_90. The original appellant, Dharam Pal Goel (hereinafter
reft<rred to as the 'appellant') had purchased 1 bigha, .12 biswas of land in
Khasra No. 718/2/2 Min and 714/1/1 Min situated in the revenue estate of G
village Khandsa, Tahsil and District Gurgaon. The appellant constructed a
school building in October 1985 on the land. The .respon&nts has issued
notification on January 30, 1989 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act (for short, the 'A.ct') for public purpose, namely, for development of
the Sectors. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on H
231
I

\

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 1 S.C.R.
~
A January 25, 1990. Thereafter the appellant filed a writ petition in the High
Court contending that the acquisition of the land for the public purpose "'""
was not correct since the appellant intended to serve another public
purpose, namely, establishing a school for the children of the locality. The
High Court dismissed the writ petition. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

B Whe~ 'the matter had come up on May 10, 1996 for hearing, this
Court directed that an Officer to be named by the respondents would make
an inspectfon and submit a detailed report as to the actual land needed for 'I<
the school building and for playground and to ascertain to what .extent
reasonable land is required to be released for the purpose of school and
c pJayground causing no disturbance to the scheme already evolved. In
furtherance thereof, an inspection was made and on the basis thereof a
decision was taken by the Director of Urban Estates, Haryana which has
been communicated to the learned counsel for the respondents.

The report relevant for the purpose runs thus :
D
".... the width of the green belt along the Jaipur-Delhi national 'f--.
highway is 50 m and non-buildable one were to be preserved then
617 sq. yards and land coming under the plan is also part of the
released land need to be acquired. The school falls immediately
by the side of the national highway, which has very fast t"\O'Jing
E traffic. The purpose of keeping the restricted zone along the school
roads is to provide a service lane besides other facilities and for
undertaking tree plantation to act a buffer to contain pollution
caused by the vehicular traffic. Leaving any more area now would
effect the alignment of service road that may have to be built
y.-
F subsequently for regulated traffic flow along the busy national
highway. Since containing 2066 sq. yards has already been released
tliis results in green belUnon-buildable zone of 135 wide along
national highway instead of 165' as per the development plan in
the larger interest, no more land should be considered for release.
This is being suggested despite the fact that for a primary school,
G
HUDA earmarks min. I acre land and that normative position is
not being recommended to in view of the location of the appellants
site being next to national highway.," 'f'w

In the light of the extract of the report, that only question for
H consideration is : whether the land purchased by the appellant serves any

"
;
DHARAMPALGOEL v. STATE 233

public purpose and is, therefore, required to be denotified from the A
acquisition? It is seen that the report indicates that the school is situated
in between the National Highway and adjacent to the proposed buffer
~,
road. The object of locating a buffer road is to facilitate plantation of the
trees to contain pollution .caused by the vehicular traffic. Thought the
alignment needs 165' of land in view of the green belt or non-buildable B
area, 135' Wide road. has been set apart. The rest of the ·larid requires to
be acquired and, therefore, that part of the land cannot be released from
acquisition. In view of the fact that the officers of the respondents have
inspected the place and given a detailed report, we find that it may not be
expedienfto give any direction 'to 'the respondents to delete a· part of the
'land belonging to the appellant. ' c
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

T.N.A. appeal dismissed.