CWP No. 2617 of 1991 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2617 of 1991 Date of Decision: 29.06.2010 Parent Teacher Association, Gurgaon. ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : None for the petitioner. Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondents. ***** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) 1. This writ petition has been filed in the year 1991 by the Parents Teacher Association of Government of Government Senior Secondary School, Gurgaon challenging a notification under Section 28 (1) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 notifying a development scheme for which the Improvement Trust proposed to acquire land of a play ground of the aforesaid school. It is averred in the petition that pursuant to the notification aforesaid, the petitioner association filed objections before respondent No.2 that the acquisition of the play ground of the school would deprive the students of an CWP No. 2617 of 1991 [2] opportunity to play the games of hockey, cricket, volleyball, football, and handball etc., and that school has no other playground of such a specified area where State level tournaments could be held. It is averred in the writ petition that the land sought to be acquired i.e. play ground of the school was given by the Gram Panchayat of Gurgaon Village sometime in early sixties free of costs for the use of the same as a play ground by the students and to hold the tournaments and other activities. It is further averred in the writ petition that those objections were not decided till the filing of the writ petition. On filing of the writ petition, notice of motion was issued to the respondents for 22.4.1991. Though the respondents including Improvement Trust Gurgaon were served but no one put in appearance and this Court passed the following order:- “ No one is present inspite of service. Admitted. Stay to continue.” 2. Even till today no reply either by the State of Haryana or by Improvement Trust has been filed, meaning thereby that the averments made in the writ petition remain unrebutted. Even today no one is present on behalf of the petitioner as well as Improvement Trust. With the assistance of Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, we have perused the notification which reads as under:- “HARYANA GOVT. GAZETTE NOVEMBER 20, 1990 1912 SAKA. OFFICE OF IMPROVEMENT TRUST, GURGAON. (Notice under Section 36 of Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922). Notice is hereby given in accordance with resolution No. 20 dated 21.8.1990 at ordinary meeting of the Gurgaon Improvement Trust. A development scheme under Section 20 read with Section 28(2) of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 has been framed for an area CWP No. 2617 of 1991 [3] measuring 8-7-0 in Khasra No.1725. Land playground in between Delhi Road and Mehroli Road. The plan map is available in the office. North: Ajit Cinema and residential houses. South: Mahavir Park. East: Mehroli Road. West: Delhi Road. 3. On going through the notification we find that the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired is stated to be a development scheme. We find that the purpose given is totally vague because what would be the development scheme has not been stated in the notification. We also cannot loose sight of the fact that the land was originally given free of cost by the Gram Panchayat of Gurgaon village for utilisation as a play ground of the students. With the issuance of the notification for acquisition, a piquant situation has arisen. Town Improvement Trust, Gurgaon seeks to acquire a play ground of a government school without stating the purpose for which the same is required. Sports are an integral part of education as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Anr. V. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2005)4 SCC 649 and relevant para No. 63 of the judgment reads as follows:- “ 63. The State by reason of a legislative action cannot confer on it extra territorial jurisdiction in relation to sports, entertainment etc. Education, however, is in Concurrent List being Item No. 25 of List-III. Sport is considered to be a part of Education (within its expanded meaning). Sport has been included in the Human Resource Development as a larger part of education. The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports was earlier a department of the Ministry of Human Resource Development. Now a separate Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports has come into being, in terms of the Allocation of Business Rules.” CWP No. 2617 of 1991 [4] 4. In case the acquisition proceedings carried out by the Improvement Trust are allowed to be finalized that would deprive the students of the government school of a play ground which is the only play ground as per the averments made in the writ petition which have gone unrebutted till today. We are of the view that if the play ground of the school is allowed to be acquired, that would adversely affect the development of the students and their education including sports which is necessary for mental as well as physical development. Since this writ petition was filed in the year 1991, the development scheme which was notified may have elapsed by now because of the stay granted by this Court on 22.4.1991 because no one has come forward to get the stay vacated or contest the case. It appears that even the Improvement Trust is also not interested to proceed further with the said scheme. Taking into account the over all public interest, which requires a play ground of the school to be preserved, we are satisfied that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and notification dated 20.11.1990 issued by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and notification dated 20.11.1990 issued by respondent No.2 is quashed. Since no one is present on behalf of the petitioner association, therefore, parties are left to bear their own costs. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE 29.06.2010 'ravinder'