Roop Ram Memorial Educational ... vs The Director Of Education And Anr.
2007 Latest Caselaw 2301 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.

1. Before dealing with the issues raised in the present appeal it would be appropriate to state the background facts on the basis of which the issues arising for our consideration have been canvassed before us.

2. The appellant herein applied for issuance of Essentiality Certificate (hereinafter called 'EC' for short) under Rule 44 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, on 12.2.1998 for establishing a school at Dwarka Pappan Kalan, New Delhi. The same was accepted and the requisite certificate was issued on 17.7.1998 by respondent No. 1-Director of Education, for a limited period of three years. After the expiry of the said period of three years and on the basis of another application of the appellant for extension of EC, the period was extended for another two years on 9.10.2001. Subsequently, on 26.11.2002, respondent No. 1 issued a sponsorship letter, addressed to the Commissioner of (Land Disposal) D.D.A., for allotment of land.

3. In the meetings of the Institute Allotment Committee of DDA held on 13.2.2003 and 17.2.2003, it is admitted that land was not allotted to the appellant. The extended period of EC in the meantime had expired and consequently the appellant again applied for extension by letter dated 15.7.2003, which was refused as intimated by letter dated 23.9.2003. The appellant was also informed that since the existing EC has been revalidated once, the same cannot be again revalidated and the appellant should apply for fresh EC.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid refusal, the appellant filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 1609 of 2005. However, on hearing the arguments and upon going through the records, the learned Single Judge found that the President and the Secretary of the appellant Society, who are father and son respectively, are also President and Secretary of another Society named Anand Education Society to which DDA had allotted land for establishing a senior secondary school and the society has established a school called 'Lancer's Convent Sr. Secondary School, Paschim Vihar, Delhi-85'. The appellant in their letter dated 24.1.2003 addressed to respondent No. 2 specifically requested to allot the land for school in a good location as they were already running and managing Lancer's Convent.

5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and appreciating the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramanand v. UOI and Ors. Reported in AIR 1994 Delhi 29, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that where a statute grants a discretion to a statutory authority, the same should be exercised informed by reason and without taking into consideration irrelevant material and without excluding any relevant material.

6. Still aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal on which we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, who have taken us through the records.

7. It was contended before us by the appellant that the DDA was to allot the land within the prescribed period of EC i.e. before 17.7.2003. It was submitted that even though the case was processed before the aforesaid time period but the land was not allotted as the file was processed at a sluggish pace, due to which validity of the EC expired. The appellant further contended that the rules do not stipulate and envisage that a particular society cannot be allotted more than one piece of land, nor do they lay down that a person cannot be a member of two societies.

8. The contentions of the respondent before us and also before the learned Single Judge were that the grant of EC does not signify and mean that the individual would become entitled to land from the DDA or any authority or any land owning agency and that it only enables the individual for consideration of his/her case by the competent authority. It was also contended that the individual can also procure/acquire the land privately for establishing and running the school for which EC is required. Respondent No. 2 also contended that the land was also not allotted due to invalid sponsorship.

9. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions, we have perused the policy of the respondents, a copy of which is placed on record by them. Under Notification dated 19th April, 2006 the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (j) of Sub-section 56 read with Sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 made amendment in the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules 1981, whereby Sub-rule 2 of Rule 4 has been substituted as follows:

(2) The Authority shall in conformity with plans and subject to the provisions of these rules, dispose of the Nazul land by auction to the following institutions:

(a) hospitals

(b) dispensaries

(c) nursing homes

(d) higher or technical education institutions

(e) community halls

(f) clubs

(g) schools

Provided that nothing in this sub rule shall affect the allotment of land to the Central Government a State Government, a Union Territory and the local body for the said purpose.

10. The aforesaid Notification came into force from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India dated 19th April, 2006. The position for allotment of land had changed in view of the aforesaid amendment. Henceforth nazul land could be disposed of to institutions like the appellant only through auction. In this connection we may also refer to the letter written by the Secretary of the appellant society on 24th January, 2003 wherein respondent No. 2 was requested for allotment of land at a good location in Dwarka inasmuch as the appellant society was running and managing Lancer's Convent', allegedly one of the best schools in Delhi. The president and the secretary of the appellant society, respectively a father and son duo, are also the president and the secretary of the Anand Education Society which runs the Lancer's Convent'. In terms of the request, the case of the appellant was placed before the Institutional Allotment Committee meetings held on 13th February, 2003 and 17th February, 2003. The stand of the appellant that the said Institutional Allotment Committee recommended for allotment of land is a correct position as is disclosed from the records. The said records, which we have perused, indicates that the Institutional Allotment Committee recommended allotment of land measuring 8000 sq.mtrs., at Dwarka for construction of senior secondary school but the fact remains that the aforesaid recommendation cannot be said to be final and binding and the same was subject to availability, verification and demarcation of land. The essentiality certificate issued to the appellant was valid up to 17th July, 2003 and, therefore, the same was also prime consideration. The stand of the respondent No. 2 is that the land could not be allotted to the appellant due to invalid sponsorship. Letter dated 23rd September, 2003 also mentions about getting the revalidation of the existing essentiality certificate which was valid till 17th July, 2003. The father and son duo, who are the president and the secretary of the appellant society are also the president and secretary of Anand Education Society for which they had received the benefit of allotment nazul land at subsidised rate under Rule 5 of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981. It is established that in the garb of another society, the same father-son duo who had got allotted land for a different society, again made a request for allotment of land under subsidised rate.

11. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramanand v. Union of India (supra) held that under the Nazul Land Rules nobody has a vested right to be allotted nazul land and what is expected is a fair and valid consideration of the request for such allotment. The learned Single Judge held that the same office bearers requesting for allotment of another piece of land under the garb of and by putting new clothes and assuming a different name may not be allotted a separate piece of land on consideration that already a plot of land stands allotted to the same set of people although in the name of a different society.

12. The principle adopted by the DDA in not allotting the land and the reasons given therefore cannot be said to be irrelevant or unreasonable. This is a well known fact and we can definitely take judicial notice that availability of nazul land in Delhi is scarce and distribution of such land at subsidised rate is like grant of largesse which may not be claimed as a matter of right. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.