Venkateshwar Education & Medical ... vs D.D.A.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5035 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Reserved on: August 08, 2012
                                       Pronounced on: August 27, 2012

+     W.P.(C) 22581/2005

      VENKATESHWAR EDUCATION & MEDICAL
      SOCIETY (REGD.)                             ..... Petitioner
                    Through Mr. Gaurav Mitra and Mr. Kartik
                            Nagarkatti, Advocates

                   versus

      D.D.A.                                              ..... Respondent
                            Through    Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Adv. for DDA

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                                JUDGMENT

1. The request of the petitioner, an educational society for allotment of a site/plot of land for the Senior Secondary School stands rejected vide impugned order of 14th November, 2005 (Annexure P-

10), which is assailed in this writ petition and a direction is sought to the respondent to allot land to the petitioner society for running Senior Secondary School in Rohini as recommended by the Institutional Allotment Committee (IAC).

2. It is asserted on behalf of the petitioner - society that since all the codal formalities for the proposed allotment was completed by the petitioner, so Institutional Allotment Committee (IAC) in its meetings held on 13th February, and 17th February, 2003 had recommended the case of the petitioner - society for allotment of land measuring 2 acres in PSP - 4, Sector 16, Phase III, Rohini, Delhi subject to confirmation

by the Planning Department of the respondent.

3. Finding the aforesaid plot of land being not suitable, petitioner

- society had requested the respondent vide letter of 6th February, 2003, to cancel the aforesaid allotment with a request to allot alternate plot of land, which was acceded to by respondent's Institutional Allotment Committee (IAC), which in its meeting of 13th February, 2003 had proposed allotment of a plot in Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi. Since no allotment letter in pursuance to the aforesaid recommendation letter was issued by the respondent, petitioner - society had approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 1033/2005 which was disposed of on 26th October, 2005 directing the respondent to consider petitioner's request for allotment of plot of land.

4. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, impugned order of 14th November, 2005 (Annexure P-10) has been passed by the respondent, rejecting petitioner's request for allotment of plot of land as the recommendations of the Institutional Allotment Committee (IAC) became subject matter of allegations and complaints of various kinds leading to enquiry by Vigilance Department as well as by CBI, compelling the respondent to review its Institutional Allotment Policy, and till a policy decision is taken, the Institutional Allotment Committee (IAC) recommendation of the year 2003 were kept frozen.

5. Respondent's policy decision culminated in the amendment to the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 vide Notification of 19th April, 2006 whereby a proviso was added to clause (e) of Rule 20 of DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981, which reads as under:-

"PROVIDED that in case of allotment to a company, firm or trust for the purpose of establishment of

[hospitals, dispensaries or higher/technical education institutes] by tenders or auction, as the case may be, such company, firm or trust, as the case may be, shall not be required to be sponsored by a Department of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi or a Ministry of the Central Government."

6. In this writ petition, reliance has been placed upon un-amended Rule 20 of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 to claim allotment of land and it was emphasized by petitioner's counsel at the hearing of this petition that the impugned order is a result of mala fide colorable exercise of power and it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent to say that the recommendations of Institutional Allotment Committee (IAC) are purely internal matter and so, the respondent cannot refuse to act upon the aforesaid recommendation of Institutional Allotment Committee (IAC).

7. During the course of hearing of this petition, it was vehemently asserted by respondent's counsel that in view of the amended Rule 20 of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 the institutional allotment of land to the societies like the petitioner can be only through auction/tender and the validity of the amended Rule 20 of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2459- 60/2005 Bhagwan Mahavir Education Society (Regd.) & Anr. Vs. DDA & Ors., rendered on 25th March, 2011.

8. The retort of the petitioner's counsel was that the decision in Bhagwan Mahavir (supra) does not seal the fate of this petition as in the instant matter, no fresh allotment is sought by the petitioner and infact what was sought by the petitioner was allotment of an alternate

plot of land and so, the respondent be directed to make an alternate allotment of land to the petitioner - society at pre-determined rates.

9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order of 14th November, 2005 (Annexure P-

10), the material on record and the decision cited, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner-society does not have an arguable case in view of the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court in Bhagwan Mahavir (supra) which is 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.

30. xxx

31. xxx

32. We are, thus, of the unequivocal view that under the existing Rules, it is the mode of auction which is available for disposal of the Nazul land for higher and technical education institutes, schools and hospitals other than cases which fall within the domain of Rule 5 r/w Rule 20 of the said Rules. The petitioners do not fall in this category."

10. In the instant matter, since amended Rule 20 of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 has been already held to be valid in Bhagwan Mahavir (supra), therefore, petitioner - society has no case to seek allotment of a plot of land, as it would be misnomer to label the petitioner's claim as a claim for an alternate allotment of a plot of land because Institutional Allotment Committee

(IAC) had merely recommended allotment of a plot of land to the petitioner - society, which had not culminated into actual allotment of a plot. Thus, eligibility of the petitioner to allotment of a plot of land at pre-determined rates cannot be considered under un-amended Rule 20 of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981. The mandate of amended Rule 20 of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 is that allotment of institutional land by auction or tender only, which prevails.

11. In view of the afore-going narration, this petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

(SUNIL GAUR) Judge August 27, 2012 pkb