Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
JAIN SABHA, NEW DELHI & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/11/1996
BENCH:
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K. VENKATASWAMI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, J.
Leave granted.
This appeal is preferred by the Union of India through
the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development and the Land
and Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development
against the judgment of the Delhi High Court allowing the
writ petition filed by the respondents with certain
direction. The first respondent is Jain Sabha, New Delhi
(Sabha) and the second ressondent is the President of the
fires respondent-Sabha.
The Sabha applied to the Land and Development Officer
[L&D.O.] for allotment of a plot of land for locating the
school being run by them. The L&D.O. allotted in 1963 a plot
of land admeasuring 1.363 acres a Rs.5000/- per acre plus
the annual ground rent of five percent thereon. The
allotment could not, however be given effect to. The Sabha
was representing repeatedly for allotment of the land. In
1967 another letter of allotment was issued stipulating the
very same rate. Ns required by the said letter, the Sabha
deposited an amount of Rs.7,185/- on 8th July, 1967. The
physical possession of the land could not however be
delivered to Sabha on account of existence of certain
structures which could not be vacated or removed. sabha
continued to press tor allotment. A question was also raised
in the Parliament on 27th February 1978 in this behalf to
which a reply was given by the government that an alternate
plot of 2.15 acres would be allotted to the appellant-
petitioner. This change in the extent to be allotted was the
consequence of change in policy. Sometime after 1967, it
appears, the relevant rules were amended according to which
no school can be established in a plot of land less than two
acres in extent. Be that as it may, possession of the
alternate land was also not given to the Sabha.
Correspondence went on between the parties. On 14th October,
1986, the L&D.O. informed the Sabha that an extent of 2.15
acres is being allotted to the Sabha for running the school
s Rupees eight lakhs per acre. Sabha represented against the
price proposed to be charged. Sn 18th July, 1990, a formal
letter of allotment was issued in respect of 2.15 acres of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
land. So far ms the rate is concerned a distinction was made
therein. With respect to the extent af 1.363 acres [Which
was the area originally allotted or intended to be allotted
to tho Sabha] consideration was fixed at Rs.5,000/- per acre
but in respect of the excess land of o 787 acres,
consideration so fixed at Rupees thirty eight lakhs per acre
total consideration so fixed for the entire extent of 2.15
acres came to Rs.29,90,600/- [premium] and Rs.74,765/-
payable as ground rent per annum. On 16th August, 1990 the
Sabha deposited a sum of Rupees ten lakhs towards the
consideration demanded.
On September 5, 1990 Delhi High Court delivered its
judgment in Delhi Development Authority V. Lala Amarnath [42
(1993] D.L.T.651] holding that in respect of Nazul land
allotted on ’no profit no loss’ basis ln accordance with the
policy of the central government to schools it is not open
to the government to charge market rate. relying upon the
said judgments Sabha filed the writ petition (from which
this appeal arises] in the Delhi High Court questioning the
demand of considerations Rupees thirty eight lakhs per acres
for part of the land allotted to it, i.e., in respect of an
extent of 0.787 acres. The Delhi High Court has allowed the
writ petition directing that the government shall charge @
Rupees five thousand per acre for the- extent of 1.363 acres
[the original proposed extent] and @ Rupees eight lakhs per
acre for the excess land of C; 787 acres. The Sabha is also
made liable to pay proportionate ground rent and other
charges in accordance with law. The money already paid by
Sabha is directed to be adjusted against the amount
determined as payable on the above basis. It has been
further directed that physical possession of the land shall
be handed over to the Sabha on completing all the
formalities within two months of the judgment.
The case put forward by the Sabha and accepted by the
High Court is to the following effect: as far back as 1967,
1.363 acres was allotted to the Sabha @ Rupees five thousand
per acre; as per the order of allotment, the Sabha had
deposited the sum of Rs.7,185/- on 8th July, 1967; so far as
this extent is concerned, the question of rate cannot be re-
opened. [Indeed, the rate in respect of this extent is not
in issue between the parties.] The dispute pertains only to
the rate chargeable for the additional extent of 0.737
acres. So far as this additional extent is concerned, the
government had agreed to allot the same @ Rupees eight lakhs
per acre through its letter dated October 14, 1986 which was
unreasonably enhanced to Rupees thirty eight lakhs per acre
under a subsequent letter rated 18th July, 1990. This
enhancement is unreasonable and arbitrary. The government
cannot charge anything more than Rupees eight lakhs for this
additional extent.
For a proper appreciation of the controversy, it is
necessary to first determine the correct state of facts.
By its letter dated June 3, 1967, the Deputy Land and
Development Officer, New Delhi informed Sabha that "the
President is pleased to sanction allotment of another plot
of land measuring 1.363 acres in Edward Square, New
Delhi....for the construction of a building for the Jain
Happy School " subject to conditions specified therein. The
rate prescribed was Rupees five thousand per acre plus the
annual ground rent @ five percent thereon. It was further
stipulated that the land shall be used by the Sabha only for
construction of a building for Jain Happy School and for no
other purpose, that no religious instructions shall, be
imparted and that "no citizen shall he denied admission to
their school on grounds of religion, race caste, language or
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
any of them". The Sabha was intimated that if the conditions
mentioned in the said letter were acceptable to its it may
deposit the sum of Rs.7,185.75p and the ground rent.
Accordingly, the Sabha deposited the said amount which
amounts tc acceptance of the condition stipulated. The
possession of the land could not, however be delivered to
the Sabha for various reasons. The Sabha was thereupon asked
to choose an alternate site. The Sabha was representing for
allotment and possession of the land and the matter was kept
pending. A question was raised in this behalf in the
Parliament. The Minister for Works and Housing replied that
possession of the land could not be delivered to the school
on account of number of built-up structures on the land. At
last, on 14th October 1986, the government of India informed
the Sabha that its request fur charging a Rupees five
thousand per acre for the alternate site of 2.15 acres
cannot he accepted and that the rate charged shall be Rupees
eight lakhs per acre, i.e., for the entire extent allotted.
Evidently, the Sabha made representations against this
whereupon the Government of India issued the formal letter
of allotment dated 18th July, 1990. In this letter, it was
stated that an extent of 2.15 acres is allotted in DIZ Area,
New Delhi for the school, instead of 1.363 acres, subject to
several conditions mentioned therein. With respect to the
rate charged, it was stipulated that so far as additional
land of 0.787 acres is concerned, it shall be charged s
Rupees thirty eight lakhs per acre while for the original
extent of 1.363 acres, the premium amount already paid by
the Sabha shall be treated as sufficient. One of the
conditions stipulated that "in the event of dissolution of
the Jain Happy School, the land allotted and the assets
created thereon will be transferred to an institution having
similar aims and objects with the prior approval of the
Govt. and failing that to Government". Yet another condition
was that "the institution shall not increase the rate of
tution fee without the prior sanction of the competent
authority and shall follow the provisions of Delhi School
Education Act/Rules, 1973 and other instructions issued from
to time". It was also stipulated that "the Jain Happy School
shall not refuse admission to the residents of the
locality". This offer was stated to be valid for one month
and if acceptable to the Sabha, it was required to
communicate its acceptance and remit the consideration
amount. Pursuant to this letter, the Sabha wrote to the
L&D.O. on 17th August, 1996 as follows:
"No.JAS/Land/1 Dated 17.8.1990
The Land & Development Officer,
Government of India, Nirman Bhavan
New Delhi-1
Sub:- Allotment of land for Jain
Happy School
Ref:- Your letter No.LV-
4(162)/90/300 dt.18.7.1990.
Dear Sir,
With reference to your above cited
letter, which was received by us on
23.7.1990 and in continuation to
ourletter of even No. dated
13.8.90, we are enclosing herewith
a Pay Order No. 001670 for dated
16.8.90 for Rs.10 lakhs on Central
Bank of India, Gole Market, New
Delhi-1 as a part payment for the
above subjected land.
Since the fee structure of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
school is such that it runs on ’No
Profit & no loss’ basis and since
the amount to be deposited is very
huge, it is not possible for the
Sabha to deposit full amount a time
and hence part payment is being
made, which may kindly he accepted.
In view of the above, you are
requested to please allow us more
time to make the balance payment.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Shri Pal Jain)
Hony.General Secretary"
It is clear from the letter that Sabha accepted the
rate specified in the allotment letter dated July 18, 1990,
viz., rate of Rupees thirty eight lakhs per acre for the
additional extent of 0.787 acres and the rate of Rupees five
thousand per acre for the initial extent of 1.363 acres -
apart from the other conditions of allotment - and deposited
a sum of Rupees ten lakhs towards the total consideration
payable as per the said allotment letter. It also requested
for further time to deposit the balance amount. Within two
months, however, Sabha resiled from this position seeking to
take advantage of a decision of the Delhi High Court in Lala
Amarnath. On 26th October, 1990, the Sabha addressed a
letter referring to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in
Lala Amarnath reguesting that as per the said judgment, it
should not be charged at a rate of more than Rupees eight
lakhs for the additional extent of 0.787 acres, and that the
amount already paid by it should be adjusted accordingly and
the excess amount refunded to it. Pausing here, we may
mention that the said judgment of the Delhi High Court deals
with a different situation under a policy said to be in
force at the time of allotment in that case. The terms of
allotment and all the material facts are wholly different.
We do no see any relevance of the said decision to the facts
of this case. Be that as it mays when its request was not
acceded to the Sabha filed the writ petition from, which
this appeal arises.
It is not brought to our notice that allotment of land
to a school by the Government of India or by the L&D.O. is
governed by any statute or statutory powers. The Sabha had
no right to allotment. It is true that an allotment was made
of 1.363 acres in the year 1967 and Sabha had remitted the
consideration of Rs.7,185.75p in that year itself. But for
one or the other reason, possession of the land could not be
delivered and no steps were taken by the Sabha thereafter to
enforce its claim. About twenty years later , i.e. s on 14th
October, 1936, 2.15 acres was proposed to be allotted at a
uniform rate of rupees eight lakhs per acre. This offer was
later revised in the respondents’ letter dated 18th July,
1999, as stated above. The Sabha accepted the same and
deposited the sum of Rupees ten lakhs towards part
consideration. It only changed its stance two months later
when it came to know of the judgment of the Delhi High Court
in Lala Amarnath and on that basis demanded that the rate to
be charged for the additional land should be @ Rupees eight
lakhs per acre only and not a Rupees thirty eight lakhs per
acre. We have pointed out that the said judgment was in no
way relevant to the facts of this case and, therefore, it is
clear that the reversal of its stand by the Sabha was
neither justified as a fact nor justified in law. Even
assuming that the said judgment was relevant in some manner,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
the Sabha could only request for revision of price but could
not claim such revision as a matter of right, in view of its
acceptance of the terms of letter of allotment dated July
18, 1990. It is not - and it cannot be - the case of the
Sabha that its acceptance aforesaid is vitiated by the later
judgment of the High Court between third parties and that it
is not bound by the said acceptance. If it takes that
stand, the result would be that the very offer contained in
the letter dated July 18, 1990 would lapse; there would be
no allotment at all in favour of the Sabha. This is the
factual position. Now, coming to the legal aspect, it
appears highly doubtful whether the writ petition itself was
maintainable but we do not wish to pursue this line of
enquiry for the reason that no such objection seems to have
been raised before or considered by the High Court The
judgment of the High Court does not refer to any such
objection nor does it deal with it.
Sri Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellants however
submits that the Sabha is running a school catering to the
students from the poor and middle classes, that it is a
purely charitable and genuine charitable organisation and
that in view of its repeated requests for allotment of land
over more than last thirty years, its request for, and its
need for land, should be sympathetically considered. Counsel
also submits that the Subha is in no position to pay the
full consideration demanded by the Government. He also
submits that the Sabha is anxious to help supplement the
Government’s efforts and obligation to provide school
education and hence, it should not be asked to pay the said
revised price for the additional land of 0.787 acres. Sri
Singhvi submitted that many other schools similarly situated
have been allotted land at very low prices and that there is
no reason for not extending the same treatment to the
appellants. The question is the proper direction to be
madein the matter consistent with laws justice and public
interest. In our opinion, the proper course in all the
circumstances of the case is to leave it open to the
respondents to approach the appellants with the above
request. It is open to the respondents to place all the
relevant facts Before the appellants and ask for a
reconsideration of the matter. It is for the Union of India
and the L.&D.O. to consider whether their orders contained
in the allotment letter dated 18th July, 1990 call for any
revision. The appeal is disposed of with the above
direction. The judgment of the High Court is set aside.
No costs.
It is directed that for a period of six months from
today, status quo as on today shall continue. Before parting
with this case, we think it appropriate to observe that it
is high time the government reviews the entire policy
relating to allotment of land to schools and other
charitable institutions. Where the public property is being
given to such institutions practically free, stringent
conditions have to be attached with respect to the user of
the land and the manner in which schools or other
institutions established thereon shall function. The
conditions imposed should be consistent with public interest
and should always stipulate that in case of violation of any
of those conditions, the land shall be resumed by the
government. Not only such conditions should be stipulated
but constant monitoring should be done to ensure that those
conditions are being observed in practice. While we cannot
say anything about the particular school run by the
respondents it is common knowledge that some of the schools
are being run on totally commercial lines. Huge amounts
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
being charged by way of donations and fees. The question is
whether there is any justification for allotting land at
throw-away prices to such institutions. The allotment of
land belonging to the people at practically no price is
meant for serving the public interest, i.e. spread of
education or other charitable purposes; lt is not meant to
enable the allottees to make money or profiteer with the aid
of public property. We are sure that the government would
take necessary measures in this behalf in the light of the
observations contained herein.