Jaipur Golden Charitable ... vs Delhi Development Authority
2002 Latest Caselaw 2159 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The petitioner, the registered private charitable trust has applied for the allotment of land to run a charitable hospital. The respondent/DDA vide letter dated 14th May 1985 informed the petitioner that it had been allotted a total area of land measuring 2.45 acres consisting of 2.0825 acres for hospital and 0.3675 acres for essential staff quarters @ 10,000 per acre and Rs. 6 lakh per acre respectively apart from the ground rent.

2. The rates for institutional land were revised by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development from Rs. 6 lakhs to Rs. 8 lakhs per acre w.e.f. 1st April 1985 and thus, the petitioner was asked to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 74,115/- which the petitioner so deposited.

3. The petitioner was desirous of some additional land and the request of the petitioner was accepted by the petitioner vide letter dated 11th November 1987 for land measuring 1.53 acres and the petitioner was charged @ Rs. 8 lakhs per acre. The said letter also stated that the terms and conditions would remain the same as already communicated vide letter dated 14th May 1985. The petitioner was aggrieved by this and vide letter dated 23rd November 1987, requested for revision of land rate to Rs. 10,000/- per acre. The request of the petitioner was, however, rejected vide letter dated 30th December 1987. A number of representations were made thereafter to the same effect. However, vide letter dated 5th/24th March 1988, the petitioner was informed that the institutional land rates had been raised by the Government of India from Rs. 8 lakhs to Rs. 9.5 lakhs per acre w.e.f. 1st April 1987 and thus, the balance amount was demanded from the petitioner in respect of the extra land, allotted vide letter dated 11th November 1987.

4. This was followed up with an other letter dated 8th/13th December 1988 stating that the cost of the institutional land had since been revised from Rs. 8 lakhs to Rs. 19 lakhs per acre w.e.f. 1st April 1987. It was also stated in the said letter that failure to pay the differential amount within 30 days would entail interest @ 18% per annum.

5. It may be noticed that the petitioner continued to deposit the differential amount up to the rate of Rs. 9.5 lakhs but when the demand was made @ Rs. 19 lakhs per acre, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present writ petition against the enhancement of the cost.

6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is state that the land rates are fixed by the government of India and not by the DDA and thus, the petitioner is bound to pay the said institutional land rates, as recommended by the Government of India. It is further stated that the additional allotment of land measuring 1.53 acres was offered on provisional basis at Rs. 8 lakhs per acre and that no lease had been executed for the same. This is stated to have been made under a mistake since the land rate applicable was Rs. 9.5 lakhs. The new rates for institutional land recommended by the Government of India were Rs. 19 lakhs per acre in the North Zone. It is further stated that since the and rates were revised from 1st April 1987 and the additional land was allotted to the petitioner only thereafter in terms of the letter dated 11th November 1987, the said land rates would apply. These rates are stated to be much lower than the market rate of Rs. 2,000/- per sq. yd. since the land rate would work out to only Rs. 392 per sq. yd.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in Rose Educational Scientific and Cultural Society (Regd.) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. . In the counter-affidavit, it is only stated that the said judgment was subject to an LPA. The LPA is stated to have been dismissed subsequently.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the Rose Educational, Scientific and Cultural Society case (supra), it was held that the allotment of institutional land was made on no profit no loss basis. This was in terms of the letter of allotment though it was provided in the lease deed that the enhancement would have to be paid by the petitioner with reference to the escalation of cost because of Government having had to pay enhanced compensation on account of awards being made under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The letter of allotment did not say that the petitioners would have to pay such enhancement as may be determined by the DDA and thus the expression "difference in cost" occurring in the allotment letter has to be examined in the background in which the letter was written. It was held that the said expression "difference in cost" can only mean the difference in cost to the Government and not to anyone else. it may be noticed that the allotment letter specified the rate of Rs. 8 lakhs per acre but in terms of the Clause 1 of the letter of allotment, this was stated to be the provisional rate and Clause 2 stated that the society shall pay difference in cost of land as may be decided by the government/DDA.

9. Learned counsel contents that the petitioner is on a better footing since even this escalation clause does not exist in the letter dated 14th May 1985 and the letter dated 11th November 1987 allotting the additional land clearly stated that the other terms and conditions would remain the same as in the letter dated 14th May 1985.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, does not dispute the fact that the neither letter dated 14th May 1985 nor letter dated 11th November 1987 contained any escalation clause. It is, however, contended that the revision of the price is based on the land rates notified by the Government of India which are binding on the respondents and the petitioner. In this behalf, reliance is placed on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in Dr. V.N. Gupta Charitable Trust and Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors., .

11. Learned counsel for the respondent has specifically referred to the plea dealt with the said judgment arising from the issue of fixation of land rates by the Government of India. It was held that the DDA has to charge rates which are fixed by the Government of India in connection with allotment of Nazul land to various social, cultural and other organizations in terms of Section 56(1) of the DDA Act and DDA (Disposal of Development Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 had been framed there under. In terms of Rule 5, it is the Central Government which has to determine the rates from time to time. Learned counsel further contended that it is the same revision of land rates to Rs. 19 lakhs which were in question in the said case and which have been upheld.

12. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant paragraphs which are as under:

"9. Learned counsel for the respondents have led me through a letter dated May 30, 1989 written by Mr. P.K. Tripathi, Commissioner (I and) to Mr. N. Ragagopalan, Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, Delhi. A perusal of the same reveals that a reference was made to the Ministry of Urban Development in order to clarify their position and stand with regard to the fixation of prices of Government land for allotment to various social, cultural and other organisations. The said letter is being reproduced in order to set at rest the controversy which has arisen in the instant case. It reads as under:

"Please refer to this office letter No. F.12(7)85/LSB/Instl/714-715 dated 13-4-89 (copy enclosed for ready reference on the subject cited above. In this connection, I am to request you to please let this office have your decision expeditiously with regard to charging of rate of the land allotted to the charitable hospitals as they do not enjoy special status so as to finalise the pending matters at the earliest."

In reply to the above query Shri Rajagopalan made a note at the bottom of the said letter to the following effect:-

"The land rate for charitable hospitals as at 'A' above will be the rates notified in the Schedule to the order fixing institutional rates zonewise?

10. Admittedly, the Delhi Development Authority has to charge the rates which are fixed by the Government of India in connection with allotment of nazul land to various social, cultural and other organisations in Delhi vide Section 56(1) which is as under:-

"(1) The Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act;

(2) ...

(a) and (b) ...

(j) the manner in which Nazul land shall be dealt with after development."

11. It would not be out of place over here in order to illustrate the above point to refer to DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981. Rule 5 runs as under:-

"The Authority may allot Nazul land to schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, other social or charitable institutions, religious, political, semi-political organisations and local bodies for remunerative, semi-remunerative or un-remunerative, purposes at he permit and ground rent in force immediately before the coming into force of these rules, or at such rates as the Central Government may determine from time to time".

12. Thus it is the government of India which is the final authority to fix the rates for the allotment of lands to various social, cultural and other organisations. The respondents are under an obligation to charge from the organisations to whom the land is allotted such rates as are fixed by the government of India. They have got no say in the matter of rates which are to be charged at the time of the allotment of land to the different organisations.

13. It can thus be safely inferred from above that the respondents have correctly charged at the rate of Rs. 19 lacs per acre for a plot of land allotted to the petitioners in North Delhi as per the rates announced by the government of India vide their letter dated October 4, 1988 and their subsequent letter dated March 10, 1989."

13. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. There is no doubt that there is no provision for increase of and rates in the allotment letter dated 11th November 1987 or the earlier letter dated 14th May 1985 in terms of which have to apply to the additional land allotted vide letter dated 11th November 1987. The question that remains is whether despite there being no such provision, can there be revision of land rates as notified by the Government of India? The answer to this would be in the affirmative in view of the provisions of the said Act read with the said Rules. In terms of Section 56(1), it is the Central government which has been authorised to make rules including the manner in which nazul land may be dealt with after development. Rule 5 of the said Rules provides for taking into consideration of the land rates by the Central Government as may be determined from time to time. Such land rates are uniformly applied and Rule 5 deals with land rates including for hospital and charitable institutions. It was thus the same from revision of land rate to Rs. 19 lakhs which had been challenged in the present petition which formed the subject matter of adjudication in the case of Dr. V.N. Gupta Charitable Trust case (supra), and thus, he said judgment would apply on all fours in the present case. In fact, the controversy in issue is no more res integra in view of the said judgment which held that charging of rate of Rs. 19 lakhs per acre for the plot of land allotted in North Delhi as per the rates notified by the Government of India is in accordance with law as it is the Government of India which has the final authority to fix the rates for allotment of lands to various social, cultural and other organisations. The respondents are thus under an obligation to charge the land rates as notified by the Government of India. The judgment of the Division Bench in Rose Educational Scientific & Cultural Society's case (supra) has also been considered in this judgment.

14. It may be noticed that in terms of the order dated 25th May 1989, the recovery of the amount over and above Rs. 9.5 lakhs per acre was stayed by this court and the said order was confirmed on 14th January 1993. Subsequently, on 8th March 1996, an order was passed in CM No. 7132/1995 on a prayer being made by the petitioner for issuance of No Objection Certificate and sanction of plans. The DDA was willing to grant the said sanction subject to certain terms and conditions including the liability to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the belated payment of the amount of premium which may be found payable by this court. This condition was not acceptable to the petitioner though the other two conditions to the effect that the petitioner shall abide by the order of this court and shall raise the construction at its own risk and cost in accordance with the building plan was acceptable. The application was disposed of with the directions of this court that the petitioner shall comply with the acceptable conditions but in so far as the third aspect was concerned, the DDA would be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the belated payment of the amount of premium in the event it is found by this court that the petitioner is liable to pay interest to the DDA on the amount in question.

15. In view of the fact that challenge by the petitioner to the impugned demand dated 8th/13th December 1988 has been dismissed, the petitioner is liable to pay the differential amount of Rs. 14,89,837.50 which should have been so paid within 30 days. The petitioner will also now be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum in view of the orders passed on 8th March 1996 which would be chargeable from the expiry of 30 days of the said letter till the date of payment. Taking into consideration the quantum of the amount liable to paid by the petitioner, the petitioner is granted three months' time to make the said payment inclusive of interest as aforesaid.

16. In view of the aforesaid, the challenge to the said revision of land rates by the petitioner cannot be sustained and the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.