Raunaq Education Foundation vs Central Board Of Secondary
2005 Latest Caselaw 1124 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. Rule.

2. The question which has arisen in this Petition is whether C.B.S.E., Respondent No. 1, is justified in refusing to grant provisional or permanent affiliation to the Petitioner. The Petition can be decided on the basis of the documents on the record.

3. The facts of the case are that 76 acres of land were acquired by the State of Haryana and were allotted to the Petitioner specifically for educational user, that is, of a Senior Secondary School. The Section 4 Notification was published on 15.5.1972, followed by the Section 6 Notification on 28.8.1972. Under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act possession of the land was taken-over by the State of Haryana in January, 1974 and handed over to the Petitioner in that year itself. The Order of the Financial Commissioner dated 18.9.1998 contains a recital that no further action was taken by the Petitioner till 1987. It appears that the Petitioner was insisting on the execution of a Title Deed, whereas the State of Haryana, rightly so, was agreeable only the execution of an Agreement incorporating the terms and conditions on which the land had been allotted to the Petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the Trustees of the Petitioner had on 18.2.1988 conveyed their willingness to execute documentation the lines insisted upon by the State of Haryana.

4. It is also not in dispute that the State of Haryana had cancelled the allotment vide Memo dated 18.9.1998, whereby a Resumption Order had been passed in respect of 69 acres. This has led to the filing of a Writ Petition which is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. It is also not in dispute that the remaining 7 acres of land have continued in the uncontested possession of the Petitioner and that a Senior Secondary School is presently running on that land. Mr. Nayyar, learnedenior Counsel for the Petitioner, has categorically stated, on instructions, that these 7 acres of land are being fully utilised for the purposes of School only, and they shall continue to be utilised for this purpose, and in consonance with the terms cotained in the Agreement. He further states, on instructions, that in the event that the 69 acres of land which have been resumed by the Respondents, is returned to the Petitioner, that land shall also be utilised exclusively for the purpose of School interms of the original Agreement. Since the status quo Orders have been passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the 69 acres of land continues in the Petitioner's possession and are being used for educational purposes only. In the Counter Afidavit filed on behalf of the State of Haryana this position is admitted. In paragraph 2 of the Counter Affidavit there is an asseveration to the effect that land ad- measuring 76 acres, 5 kanal, 5 marla was acquired for Education Department by Revenue authorities and was sold to the Trust under Section 41 of Land Acquisition Act with an agreement executed between Director Secondary Education, Haryana and Trustee of Raunaq Education Foundation Trust with the condition that the Trust shall set-up this Edcational Complex within three years. Paragraph 11 of the Counter Affidavit does not state anything to the contrary, albeit there is a reference to the right of resumption in case the land was used contrary to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

5. It may have been possible for the State of Haryana to have cancelled the allotment of the entire land but it has not done so, perhaps keeping in view the fact that a Senior Secondary School has been running on the seven acres of land. There is, therefore, no controversy at present as to the title over the 7 acres of land and also of the factual position that a School is running thereon.

6. The norm of affiliation, so far as the C.B.S.E. is concerned, is that there is a requirement for 'about 2 acres of land and the building constructed on a part of the land.' It is thus not in dispute that this norm has been complied with. The Order of the Financial Commissioner also supports this position. The dispute revolves around the title to the land, and that too in the backdrop of the insistence of the C.B.S.E. that a document/deed of title in favor of the Petitioner must exist.

7. The need to hold an undisputed ownership over the land is essential for the proper functioning of the School and, therefore, the norm in this regard is a salutary one. Although leases of the land are permissible, their tenure or period must be for overa quarter century thus imparting some permanence to the holding of the land. When the State of Haryana is not disputing the title or ownership of the Petitioner in respect of the 7 acres of land, it is no longer a matter of grave concern to the C.B.S.E.

whether the Title, as envisaged in the Transfer Property Act in the form of a Sale Deed etc., exists in favor of the Petitioner. The provision of Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act appears to indicate that a Title Deed may not be an essential requirement so long as there is an Agreement between the Allotted and the proper Government. This Agreement has been executed in terms of the Deed styled as a Conveyance Deed dated 25.2.1988. Clause 1 of this Deed enjoins the Petitioner to pay the cost of the land which has been done, as is evident from a perusal of the Challan for a sum of Rs. 3,26,340/- a copy whereof is available on the record. Further, minute inquiry into this matter by the C.B.S.E. appears to me to be a futile exercise. Even in the letter dted 4.8.2003 the C.B.S.E. has used the words 'land ownership documents earmarked for the School which are required to be got registered with the competent authority'. In view of the Counter Affidavit of the State of Haryana this formality has been completed so far as the requirements of affiliation to C.B.S.E. are concerned. If the Petitioner loses possession or title to the land the C.B.S.E. retains the power to reconsider the grant of affiliation, as the substratum on which the decision is based would have been dislodged.

8. It is unfortunate that the Petitioner has violated another norm of the C.B.S.E. viz. that student should not be admitted to Class-IX and X in the absence of provisional affiliation. It is indeed regrettable that persons desirous of being considered as educationists flagrantly violate conditions such as these, with the only objective of pressuring the Authorities, and perhaps the Court, into granting them some leniency. The decision of the Administration not to resume 7 acres is possibly an example of succumbing to such pressure. That decision has already been taken. This Court is not affected by any equities in favor of the so-called students in passing these Orders, as every Authority should always remain impervious to these forms of pressure. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not countenanced arguments based on the future of students who have taken admission to Institutions knowing that they do not have legal standing.

9. This Writ Petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the C.B.S.E. to grant provisional affiliation in terms of Bye-law 3 (IV) (i) in pursuance to the Petitioner's application No. 4269 dated 26.6.2003. The Petitioner, however, shall have to comply within a period of three years with all other norms if it is desirous of obtaining regular affiliation under Bye-Law III (IV) (i). Requisite action be taken by the C.B.S.E. within two months from today.

10. Parties to bear their respective costs.

11. dusty.