Mandir Education Society Vs. Malleswaram Sangeetha Sabha  INSC 407 (30 July 1994)
and R.M. Sahai, Jj.)
appellant-society has been running a school at 11th Cross West Park Road, Malleswaram in Bangalore City. The said school has been in existence for about 22 years
and was shifted in 1976 to the present premises. The school has got about 1500
students. Adjacent to the school there is an open land about 300 ft. x 75 ft.
It is the claim of the appellant that they have applied for allotment of land
of 100 ft. x 75 ft. to use it as a playground for the children as there is no
open land for playground. It is their claim that the municipal corporation had
not allotted the land and that therefore they moved a petition. Their petition
has been dismissed by the corporation without considering their request. When
the matter has gone to the High Court under Article 226, initially the learned
Single Judge remitted the matter for reconsideration by the corporation, but on
appeal, in the impugned judgment in Writ Appeal No. 2407 of 1990, the Division
Bench by order dated 25-3-1992 interfered with and dismissed the
writ petition of the appellant. Thus this appeal, by special leave.
is not in dispute that the appellant has been running the school for about 22
years and that there is no independent land for use as a playground by the
students around 1500. Admittedly, Respondent 1, Malleswaram Sangeetha Sabha
obtained lease of the land from the municipal corporation to an extent of 100
ft. x 75 ft. which is adjacent to the school. The appellant claimed allotment
of same land near about the school. The High Court found that the appellant had
+ Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15992 of 1992 27 not made any specific claim to
allot that particular land, a vague reference was made to allot any land
adjacent to the school and that therefore the appellant cannot claim as of
right for any allotment. In view of the fact that from 1976 the school is being
run in the present premises and adjacent to this the land allotted to the 1st
respondent admittedly was vacant at that time. Reasonably when the school
claimed for allotment, the allotment may be adjacent to the school so that the
land could be used by the children as their playground without any difficulty.
Obviously the municipal corporation was to allot the vacant land adjacent to
the school instead, it had granted lease to the 1st respondent.
those circumstances we find it is just and proper that the municipal
corporation should allot the adjacent land allotted to the 1st respondent to
the appellant's school for using it as a playground. It is also pointed out
that after this land, there appears to be another vacant land of an extent of
200 ft. x 75 ft. as stated in the Plan-Annexure 'E' filed in this Court as part
of the documents and if that land is vacant municipal corporation would
consider the allotment of 100 ft. x 75 ft. in that land to the 1st respondent
for using it for construction of the building for musical concert. In case of
any difficulty any other vacant land in that area may be considered for
allotment on lease to the first respondent.
Under these circumstances the order of the High Court is set aside and there
shall be a direction to the municipal corporation to allot the land of 100 ft.
x 75 ft. which was allotted immediately to the 1st respondent to the appellant-
society and within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the
order an equal portion may be allotted near about the place to the 1st
respondent as stated earlier.
appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without costs.