Case Note & Summary
This Supreme Court order concerned unauthorized allotment of land earmarked for a park to a school and the need to vacate and dismantle the school building. The petitioners, G.N. Khajuria and others, had earlier obtained an order from the Supreme Court directing vacation of the school and dismantling of the structure. In the present proceedings, an extension of time for compliance was sought and the Court was also required to consider a report submitted by Shri D.S. Meshram, Chief Planner, Town and Country Planning Organization, Government of India, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, dated November 17, 1995. The Bench consisted of K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ. The factual background shows that originally the area in question was earmarked for a park. There was no indication that it was intended to be allotted to any third agency. The Vice-Chairman of the relevant authority had repeatedly pointed out this earmarking and had issued notice to have the school vacated and the park preserved. Although notice was given, no follow-up action was pursued. Consequently, the residents had to take up the matter and ultimately succeeded in getting an order from the Supreme Court. In the present order, the Court noted that it had carefully examined the record annexed to the report. It found that the Chief Planner's report was superficial and lacked in-depth scrutiny; the report merely stated what was apparent and did not advert to the impact of the Court's order. The Court observed that the report was like that of a clerk putting up the rote and nothing more. Despite this criticism, the Court proceeded to analyse the underlying records. It confirmed that the land was originally earmarked for a park and that the allotment to the school was a deviation. The Court attempted to identify the person responsible for the deviation and illegal allotment but found it difficult to pinpoint the actual person. It observed that the person had skillfully managed and camouflaged the allotment by getting the plan approved, and since the plan was ultimately approved by the Lieutenant Governor, the action went under the carpet of official action, allowing the person to escape from the clutches of law. Therefore, the Court concluded that nothing could be done in the circumstances and closed the report accordingly. The operative part of the order extended the time for vacating the school and dismantling the same as per the earlier judgment of the Court till 30th April, 1996. The legal issues were not framed as such; the Court disposed of the application for extension and the report. There are no recorded submissions of parties in the order. The Court's analysis focused on the procedural history and the inadequacy of administrative inquiry. It emphasized that earmarked park land could not be diverted for a school without proper approval, and that official approval of the plan by the Lieutenant Governor did not cure the underlying illegality. The order concludes by granting the extension and closing the report. The decision is in favour of the appellants to the extent of time extension, while the report is closed without fixing responsibility.
Issue of Consideration
Whether to grant an extension of time for vacating the school and dismantling the structure as per the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court; and whether the report on the unauthorized allotment of park land identified any responsible person.
Final Decision
Time for vacating the school and dismantling the same as per the judgment of the Supreme Court was extended till 30th April, 1996. The report of the Chief Planner was accepted and closed. The Court could not pinpoint the person responsible for the deviation and illegal allotment because the plan was ultimately approved by the Lieutenant Governor, which allowed the responsible person to escape from the clutches of law.
Law Points
- Land earmarked for a park cannot be allotted to a third agency or school without proper approval. Administrative inquiries must be in-depth and must consider the impact of court orders
- superficial reports are unacceptable. Approval of a plan by the Lieutenant Governor does not validate an underlying illegal allotment. Responsibility for deviation and illegal allotment must be identified
- but if not possible due to camouflage
- the report may be closed.
