Carmel School Society Vs. D.D.A.  Insc 1301
(14 December 2007)
Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi
out of SLP (C) No.3251 of 2006) S.B. Sinha, J.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of a Division Bench of
Delhi High Court dated 7.9.2005 passed in LPA No.404 of 2003.
Appellant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act.
runs an educational institution. It applied for allotment of four acres of land
for running a senior secondary school before the Delhi Development Authority.
The Institutional Allotment Committee which was constituted by the Authority,
made recommendations for allotment of four acres of land.
the competent authority of the DDA took a policy decision only to allot two
acres of land.
Several writ petitions were filed which by reason of the impugned judgment have
been dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
embarking on the questions raised before us, we may place on record that except
the present appeal, other appeals were heard and dismissed by a Division Bench
of this Court (Coram Hon. B.P. Singh and P.K. Balasubramanyam, JJ). The said
order, however, is not a reasoned one.
K.K. Rai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, submitted
that the factual scenario obtaining in the present appeal is different from the
others, inasmuch as recommendations of allotment of four acres of land were
made both in its favour as also in favour of one Shri Venkateshwara Educational
Society; but whereas in the case of the latter society four acres of land was
directed to be allotted; the appellant was denied of a similar grant.
High Court, learned counsel argued, misdirected itself in passing the impugned
judgment in so far as it failed to take into consideration that the said Shri Venkateshwara
Educational Society was not a necessary party in the writ petition as no relief
was claimed against it, inasmuch as if the writ petition were to be allowed,
the said society would not have suffered any prejudice.
V.B. Saharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the
other hand, supported the impugned judgment.
question which arose for consideration before the High Court was as to whether
the Delhi Master Plan having provided for allotment of four acres of land for
running of a secondary school, the Delhi Development Authority could take a
policy decision of allotment only of two acres of land.
have noticed hereinbefore that a large number of societies applied for
allotment of land for setting up senior secondary schools. A recommendation had
been made in favour of the apellant by the Institutional Allotment Committee on
or about 23.10.1998. Indisputably, similar recommendations had been made in favour
of other societies as well, including the said Shri Venkateshwara Educational
of the Committee, however, do not appear to have been approved by the
authority. It furthermore appears that the appellant was asked to send its
latest bank balance certificate and/or financial status.
Lt. Governor, who is Chairman of the Society, had also asked for certain
clarifications pertaining to constructions of the school building. On or about
9.3.2000, a provisional allotment was made but, allegedly, the appellant
society failed to furnish an undertaking within the period stipulated therefor.
Indisputably, the Vice Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority made
recommendations for allotment of only two acres of land in favour of the
appellant. Shri Venkateshwara Educational Society, however, was allotted a land
measuring four acres of land way back on 25.8.1999.
The policy decision of the Authority which was impugned in the writ petition
was taken in October 1999. It has not been shown before us that any allotment
has been made in favour of any society allotting land having an area of four
acres, after October 1999.
may furthermore notice that the plea of discrimination raised in the writ
petition was absolutely vague as it was merely averred :
petitioner also wrote to Respondent No.1 on 24.03.2000 requesting for allotment
of 1.6 hectares of land at the prevailing rate of Rs.30 lakhs per acre in 1996
when the application for land was made and other similarly situated
institutions were allotted land...
Grounds taken in the writ petition in this behalf also did not specify that the
appellant had been discriminated against, vis-`-vis the said Shri Venkateshwara
Education Society or any other allottee. Details of the grant in favour of the
said society was not furnished. In absence of any specific contention having
been raised, it was not possible for the respondent to furnish any reply
argument also appears to have been advanced in this behalf before the learned
Single Judge. The memo of appeal of the appellant was not supported by any
affidavit affirmed either by one of its authorized representatives who was
present in court or by the advocate appearing on its behalf, stating that the
contention in regard to the discriminatory treatment was raised before the
learned Single Judge but was not dealt with.
Judges record, as is well known, must be accepted as correct.
thus, could have filed an application for review before the learned Single
Judge. The same was not done.
are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court cannot be said to have
committed any error in passing the impugned judgment.
feeble attempt was made by Mr. Rai to contend that the Central Government also
was of the opinion that the area to be allotted for senior secondary school
cannot be reduced. The High Court, in this regard held :
importantly, the learned Single Judge has noted that the official records of
the Central Government dealing with the communications of DDA were produced
before him. The nothings in the file, which were apparently perused by the
learned Single Judge, show that the recommendations of DDA were considered by
the Central Government and thereafter finally approved for implementation. In
view of this factual position, we are quite satisfied that the land rates were
determined by the Central Government and were not fixed by DDA. There was no
excessive delegation of power or responsibility on the part of the Central
Government and so this contention must be rejected. In view of the said
findings of the High Court which, as noticed hereinbefore, have been accepted
by this Court, we are not inclined to take a different view therefrom.
For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal. It is
dismissed accordingly with costs. Counsels fee assessed at Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees twenty five thousand only).