Delhi High Court
Northex Campus Society vs Dda & Anr. on 7 September, 2012
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: August 29, 2012
Pronounced on: September 07, 2012
+ (i) W.P.(C) No. 15302/2006
CITIZEN SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Leena Tuteja & Mr. Archit
Vasudeva, Advocate
versus
UOI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for
R-2/DDA
+ (ii) W.P.(C) No.9078/2006
THE VIKAS PURI CLUB REGD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nandani Sahni, Ms. Sumi
Anand & Mr. Sumit Bansal,
Advocates
versus
DDA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate
+ (iii) W.P.(C) No.1213/2006
NORTHEX CAMPUS SOCIETY ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sumi Anand, Advocate
versus
DDA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal & Mr.Aditya
Sharma, Advocates
WP(C) Nos. 9078, 15302 & 1213 of 2006 Page 1 of 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGEMENT
1. The plea of petitioner- The Vikas Puri Club Regd. is that
absolute right had accrued in favour of petitioner for allotment of land
at concessional rates for Community Centre in Vikaspuri, Delhi in
pursuance to recommendations of 13th February and 17th February of
2003 (Annexure P-8) by respondent's Institutional Allotment
Committee and the subsequent amendment carried out in the DDA
(Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred
to as the „Nazul Rules‟) cannot be given retrospective effect to deny
allotment of an institutional plot at pre-determined rate.
2. Petitioner- Citizen Social Welfare Society also asserts its right to
allotment of institutional land situated between Block B-5 & B-6,
Vasant Vihar, Delhi, as per Nazul Rules prevalent in the year 2002 and
to quash Notification of 19th April, 2006 whereby the DDA's Nazul
Rules of 1981 were amended to provide that allotment of institutional
lands for Community Halls etc. would be made by way of auction and
to set aside letter of 5th July, 2006 of respondent-DDA issued to
petitioner to deny allotment of land for Community Hall by relying
upon aforesaid Notification of the year 2006.
3. Petitioner- Northex Campus Society seeks annulment of policy
decision of 29th September, 2003 (Annexure P-12) regarding allotment
of institutional lands by DDA and allotment of a plot for Socio-
Cultural Centre/ Club in pursuance to the recommendation (Annexure
P-6) of respondent- DDA's Institutional Allotment Committee to allot
plot of land to petitioner for Club i.e. Plot No.1 at Community Centre
situated on Road No. 44 in Pitampura, Delhi.
4. In view of the common stand taken by respondent-DDA in these
petitions and the submissions made on behalf of petitioners to assail it
being similar, the above captioned three petitions were heard together
and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
5. Institutional lands are allotted under the DDA's Nazul Rules of
the year 1981 by following the guidelines provided in Rule 20 thereof.
Since proposed allotment of institutional lands by respondent- DDA's
Institutional Allotment Committee in the year 2003 became subject
matter of controversy, respondent- DDA brought about change in its
policy for allotment of institutional lands whereby mode of allotment
of institutional lands was changed from allotment of such lands at pre-
determined rates to allotment of such like lands to private societies by
way of public auction and the said change in the mode of allotment is
contained in respondent- DDA's policy decision (Annexure P-12) of
the year 2003.
6. In pursuance to the aforesaid DDA's policy decision (Annexure
P-12) of the 2003, an amendment was brought about in the DDA's
Nazul Rules by way of a Gazette Notification of 19th April, 2006
adopting public auction as a mode of allotment of institutional lands to
private societies like petitioners. The validity of the DDA's Nazul
Rules of the year 1981, as amended on 19th April, 2006, have been
upheld in a recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.(C) No.2459-60/2005, titled as „Bhagwan Mahavir Education
Society (Regd.) & Anr. Vs.DDA & Ors.'. rendered on 25th March, 2011
while concluding 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."
7. The common stand taken by learned counsel for petitioners in
these petitions is that there can be no retrospective operation of the
amended DDA's Nazul Rules of the year 1981, as right of petitioners to
the allotment of institutional plot of lands had crystallized by virtue of
recommendations made prior to amendment of the aforesaid Nazul
Rules. In support of this stand, reliance was placed upon decisions in
„Anil Chandra & Ors. Vs. Radha Krishna Gaur & Ors‟ (2009) 9 SCC
454; „Nani Sha & Ors. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.‟ (2007)
15 SCC 406; „Kusum Hotels Private Limited Vs. Kerala State
Electricity Board & Ors.‟ (2008) 13 SCC 213; „Sonia Vs. Oriental
Insurance Col. Ltd. Ors.‟ (2007) 10 SCC 627.
8. The counter-stand of respondent-DDA is that since no
enforceable right had accrued in favour of petitioners prior to the
amendment of DDA's Nazul Rules in the year 2006, so petitioners
cannot be allotted institutional lands at predetermined rates, as
recommendation of DDA's Institutional Allotment Committee was
conditional and because petitioners could not comply with the
conditions of obtaining sponsorship certificate etc. from the concerned
authorities prior to 19th April, 2006, when DDA's Nazul Rules of the
year 1981 were amended, therefore the allotment of institutional lands
w.e.f. 19th April, 2006 has to be by auction mode and not at pre-
determined rates.
9. Having considered the submissions advanced, the decisions cited
and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the
question of retrospective applicability of the amended DDA's Nazul
Rules of the year 1981 does not arise at all , as no enforceable right had
accrued in favour of petitioners prior to the amendment of the DDA's
Nazul Rules of the year 1981, and so, petitioners cannot seek allotment
of institutional lands at pre-determined rates during the period post
amendment of Nazul Rules, as the same has to be by way of public
auction to the private societies like petitioners. Counsel for petitioners
cannot be heard to say that the delay was on the part of respondent-
DDA in keeping petitioner's application for allotment of institutional
lands pending for long time because nobody had stopped petitioners to
seek their remedies available in the law against purported inaction of
respondent-DDA in acting upon the recommendations of DDA's
Institutional Allotment Committee.
10. In fact, there was a valid justification for not acting upon the
aforesaid recommendations as they were subject matter of an enquiry
by the CBI who had reported that there was serious bungling in the
recommendations of the DDA's Institutional Allotment Committee. In
any case, no fault can be found in the DDA's policy decision of the
year 2003 (Annexure P-12) assailed by petitioner -Northex Campus
Society, as the aforesaid policy decision was adopted by the DDA to
amend the DDA's Nazul Rules of the year 1981 in April, 2006 , whose
validity has been upheld in Bhagwan Mahavir (Supra).
11. Consequently, the relief sought in these petitions to allot
institutional plots of land at pre-determined rates cannot be granted and
so, these three petitions are dismissed, while leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
September 07, 2012
rs
