Delhi High Court
Moon Light Education & Welfare ... vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 27 August, 2012
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: August 22, 2012
% Pronounced on: August 27, 2012
+ W.P.(C) No. 3230/2007
MOON LIGHT EDUCATION & WELFARE SOCIETY
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Mitra & Mr. Kartik
Nagarkatti, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. .....
Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for
R-1 to R-3
Mr. Anuj Tyagi & Mr. Sachin
Chopra, Advocates for R-4 & R-5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
1. In May, 2003, the petitioner - an educational institution had
sought allotment of land for a middle school at Model Town/
Dheerpur/ Rohini or Shalimar Bagh, Delhi from the respondent-
DDA, who vide communication of 23rd May, 2003 (Annexure - F)
had called upon the petitioner-society to submit the sponsorship for
allotment of land from the Government of NCT of Delhi. Petitioner
claims that though an Essentiality Certificate, having validity of
three years w.e.f. 4th June, 2001 was obtained by the petitioner
from the concerned authority and was submitted to the respondent-
DDA along with Sponsorship Certificate of 16th April, 2003 with
letter of 25th June, 2003 (Annexure-G colly), but the respondent-
DDA had negligently failed to process the case of petitioner for
allotment of land for school, despite petitioner fulfilling all the
requisite formalities.
2. It is asserted on behalf of the petitioner that vide letter of 29th
January, 2004, request for processing petitioner's application to
allot land for its school was reiterated but to no avail and petitioner
had got the Essentiality Certificate renewed till June, 2008. In this
writ petition, the three reliefs claimed are; firstly, to direct the
Directorate of Education to extend / renew/ revalidate the
Essentiality Certificate of the petitioner till respondent-DDA takes
decision to allot a suitable land to the petitioner, secondly, that
petitioner be exempted from obtaining Sponsorship Certificate for
allotment of land and the Essentiality Certificate and third relief
sought is the main relief i.e. to direct the respondent-DDA to allot
suitable land to the petitioner.
3. In the counter affidavit filed to this petition, the stand of
respondent-DDA is that in pursuance to the Resolution of 19 th
January, 2006, Policy regarding allotment of land to schools etc.
was renewed in order to strike the balance between the transparent
mode of allotment and essential application of free education to the
poor and accordingly, amended DDA (Disposal of Developed
Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the „Nazul
Rules‟) notified on 19th April, 2006 came into operation whereby
50% of the available school plots were to be placed at the disposal
of the Government and the remaining 50% to be auctioned to the
public.
4. According to respondent-DDA, switchover from allotment
of public land to educational institutions at the concessional rates
was necessitated as CBI had pointed out serious lacunae in the
allotment of land to the educational societies by the DDA. Counsel
for respondent-DDA asserts that the amendment in the Nazul Rules
in the year 2006 was brought about in the light of the Apex Court
decision in „Modi Enterprises (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. New Delhi
Municipal Council‟ (2007) 8 SCC 75 declaring the public auction
as transparent mean of disposal of public property. It is the case of
the respondent-DDA that vide letter of 17th May, 2004 (Annexure
R-3), the deficiencies in petitioner's application for allotment of
land was pointed out. There is no rejoinder of the petitioner to
assert that the said deficiencies, as pointed out in the letter of 17th
May, 2004 (Annexure R-3) of respondent-DDA, were made good
by the petitioner.
5. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied
upon the decision of Single Bench of this Court in „Glory Public
School & Anr. Vs. Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT & Ors.‟ 107(2003)
DLT 662 to urge that there can be no retrospective application of
the amended Nazul Rules, as the eligibility of the petitioner in the
year 2003 is to be seen.
6. To refute the aforesaid contention, it was urged by
respondent's counsel that no enforceable right had accrued in
favour of the petitioner prior to amendment of Nazul Rules in the
year 2006 and so, petitioner cannot seek allotment of land at pre-
determined rates, as the same would be contrary to the decision of
a Division Bench of this Court in batch of petitions rendered on
25th March, 2011 in W.P.(C) No.2459-60/2005, titled as Bhagwan
Mahavir Education Society (Regd.) & Anr. Vs.
DDA & Ors.'.
7. Upon considering the submissions advanced in the light of
material on record and the decisions cited, it becomes evident that
the petitioner had an arguable case to seek enforcement of
respondent's offer to allot land for its school in pursuance to
respondent's Communication of May, 2003 (Annexure-F) but
petitioner ought to have pursued its remedies to seek the allotment
of land for its school at pre-determined rates and should not have
remained content with the intimation of 25th June, 2003 (Annexure-
G colly) to the respondent-DDA of having a valid Essentiality
Certificate because the communication of 17th May, 2004
(Annexure R-3) of the respondent-DDA requiring the petitioner to
submit revalidated Essentiality Certificate along with other
requisite documents is not shown to have been complied with by
the petitioner.
8. Without availing of the remedies against non- allotment of
land to the petitioner from the year 2003 till the amended Nazul
Rules came into force on 19th April, 2006, the petitioner cannot put
the blame on the respondent-DDA for not allotting the land in
question by relying upon Glory Public School (Supra), as in the
aforesaid case despite time bound direction of four months, the
respondent-DDA had not acted upon the Representation of the
aforesaid school and in that context, it was said that the delay is
attributable to the respondent. It is not so in the instant case.
9. The validity of the amended Nazul Rules has been already
upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Bhagwan Mahavir
(Supra), wherein the allotment having not matured prior to the
Nazul Rules as amended in 2006, was held to be valid ground for
not allotting land at pre-determined rates to the educational
societies like the petitioner by observing as under:-
"29. We are, thus, of the considered view
that the interpretation of Rules placed
before us by the DDA is the correct view
and the petitioners have no case in this behalf in
view of no allotment having matured in their
favour prior to the amendments of the said Rules."
10. Thus, the question of retrospective application of the Nazul
Rules, as amended in the year 2006 to the cases pending prior
thereto, which had not matured by then, does not arise. Thus, the
reliefs sought in this petition are declined, while leaving the parties
to bear their own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 27, 2012
rs
