Parents Teacher Association vs M.C.D.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1559 Del

JUDGMENT

Khan, J.

1. Petitioner is an association of teachers and parents of MCD Primary School, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara. It has taken upon itself the cause of MCD related to title/transfer of 200 sq.yds. plot No. 42 and has filed this petition for direction to respondents 2 & 3 to either transfer this plot to MCD or to acquire it for MCD so as to facilitate the smooth functioning of the school.

2. Petitioner's case is that plot 40 to 48 comprising khasra Nos. 1374/1068 at Village Chandrawali were declared as evacuee property and placed under the management of Delhi Administration which was later succeeded by R-3. R-1 (MCD) established a primary school on these plots sometime in 1959 which at present had 800 students on its rolls. This was supported and evidenced by office order dated 6.5.1968 passed by Regional Settlement Commissioner placing 330 plots at the disposal of R-2 including plots No. 40 to 48 and letter dated 27.10.1997 addressed by R-3 to R-1 and by the Revenue Authority's report showing that there was no land covered by khasra No.2388/1416, as claimed by R-4. Yet officers of the Land Department of R-1 were colluding with R-4 to take away this plot No. 42 from the MCD which had the consequence of prejudicially affecting the interests of the school. It is also complained that officers of R-1 were making no effort for transfer of this plot to MCD or for its acquisition.

3. All respondents have filed their counter affidavits. R-1 (MCD) has stated that it was running its school at Khasra Nos. 1374/1068/511 and not in Khasra No. 2388/1416. Beyond this, nothing is indicated about the title and ownership of the land falling under plot NO. 42. R-3 (Government of NCT of Delhi) has stated that this plot was an evacuee property and was later transferred to Delhi Administration but this respondent has also stopped short of disclosing the real story. R-4, on the other hand, who is claiming ownership on this plot, has explained that it was purchased by his father vide Sale Deed dated 22.6.1951 and was then forcibly occupied by MCD in 1959. For this, he filed Suit No. 432/63 claiming damages which was eventually compromised and wherein he accepted MCD as tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- and pursuant whereto R-1 (MCD) deposited Rs. 2192/- towards the rent of the premises up to 9.2.1965 and later passed a resolution dated 30.7.1964 to ratify the compromise. The MCD continued to pay the rent till 1981 but later stooped it constraining him to file a second suit No. 959/84 for recovery of possession which was decreed in his favor on 27.3.1997. R-1 (MCD) appealed against it by filing RCA No. 58/97 which was dismissed on 7.8.1999 thus lending finality to the decree passed by the Civil Judge. He alleges that petitioners were acting as proxy of the MCD and wanted to re-open the entire issue which stands already settled by the civil court decree in his favor.

4. The petitioner has filed this petition in public interest but we find no such interest involved in the matter. Nor are we able to appreciate the Association's locus. It is nobody's case that the disputed or title of this land was causing any prejudice or hardship to the students' cause. The dispute, as would be apparent from record, stands as good as settled by the civil court decree on contest by MCD. It is for the MCD to ventilate its grievance, if any, or to explore ways and means to revive its claim by remedy under law. Petitioner had no role to play and was a stranger to the dispute for all practical purposes. It could not take upon itself the cause which was otherwise to be pursued by the MCD and that too in an attempt to re-open the civil court findings and decree in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. It is elementary that no writ could be issued to defat and upset a civil court decree. Nor could any direction be issued to respondents 2 & 3 to take steps to acquire the land. Therefore, all told, we find no merit in this petition which is dismissed.