Delhi Development Authority, ... vs Shiksha Bharati Educational ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 1926 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, A.C.J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the DDA aggrieved by the order dated March 14,2005 passed by the learned Single Judge inter alia directing that the respondent's case be processed and allotment letter followed by possession of the plot as per its entitlement in terms of the DDA's decision in 1997 be given within eight weeks from the date of the judgment. Thereafter review petition was filed by the DDA which was dismissed on March 23, 2006 and that is how the present appeal is filed in this Court. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent is running a school by encroaching upon the land of the DDA measuring 1250 sq. yds. and therefore, the respondent could not be allowed to continue to encroach upon the area of 1250 sq. yds belonging to DDA and simultaneously have the benefit of regular allotment from DDA for shifting the school.

2. On the other hand Mr. Jain learnde Counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that the school is being run by the Society since 1988 and when certain action was contemplated by the DDA the respondent society filed Writ Petition no. 6484/98. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with the direction to the respondent society to approach the DDA for regularisation of that portion of the land consisting of 1250 sq. yds. which was under encroachment by the respondent. On 31.3.2006 the representation of the respondent society was rejected and thereafter the respondent also filed another writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.5598/2006 challenging the rejection by the DDA.

3. Certain undisputed facts which have been delineated in the impugned order are to the following effect:

(i) The petitioner applied for a plot of land to shift its school into a new building, it seeks to shift the existing school.

(ii) The initial recommendation was made in petitioner's favor as far back as on 25.5.1992. DDA followed up this with a requirement that the petitioner should furnish a certificate(of solvency) to the tune of Rs.32.5 lakhs disclosing the availability of that amount. This was done in September 1992 itself;

(iii) The sponsorship/essentiality certificate in favor of the petitioner was issued by the Directorate of Education on 25-05-1992. It specifically records that certificate is for shifting of the institution to a new school building;

(iv) The DDA again sought for fresh sponsorship certificate through its letter dated 21.11.1996, the petitioner replied to this enclosing the existing certificate and clarifying that it would be valid till actual allotment of the land by the DDA itself;

(v) The DDA wrote to the petitioner asking it to submit a copy of bank balance certificate to the tune of Rs. one crore on 4.4.1997 this too was complied with by the petitioner on 21.5.1997;

(vi) The DDA kept quiet for some more time and again asked the petitioner to furnish a bank balance certificate. Later on 4.5.1999 it sought for a fresh responsorship certificate from the petitioner;

(vii) The Directorate of Education on the application of the petitioner wrote no less than four letters, clarifying that there was no need for furnishing Essentiality Certificate in respect of society like the petitioner which intends to shift to new premises within the same some in DDA land. This position was not disputed by the DDA;

(viii) The petitioner has also made available yet one more certificate, this time by the Corporation Bank, during pendency of these proceedings on 16.2.2005. This was furnished to the DDA by letter dated 17.2.2005. The same was placed on record on 28.2.2005.

4. In the light of the aforesaid facts the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that it was on account of the delay at every stage by the DDA that the school could not be shifted to a new building as DDA did not allot the said land to the respondent society. However, to cut short the controversy, Mr. Jain counsel for the respondent society states that in case the land is allotted in terms of the impugned order to the respondent society, the respondent society shall hand over the possession of 1250 sq. yds. of the land which has been under their occupation where certain structure has been built for the purposes of running the school.

5. In view of the statement of the learnde Counsel for the respondent, we feel that the DDA cannot have any impediment in allotment as has been directed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we direct the appellant to complete the formalities of issuing a allotment letter and hand over the possession of the plot as per its entitlement in terms of the DDA's decision, 1992 within eight weeks from today. After the allotment is made, possession thereof is taken over, the respondent will construct a school building within 30 months. Counsel for the respondent says that after the building is constructed they will shift the school into the new building and immediately hand over to the DDA the possession of 1250 sq. yds. of the land after demolishing the superstructure existing thereon.

6. Writ petition stands disposed of.