1. Dispute over premium rates for additional land allotted for a school following a failed initial allotment and subsequent revised offers. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1972
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Delhi High Court)
B P Jeevan Reddy, K Venkataswami
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER, APPELLANTS;
VERSUS
JAIN SABHA, NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. 14729 of 1996
decided on November 21, 1996.
Important Points
Once a party accepts the terms of an allotment letter, they are bound by the agreement. They cannot unilaterally resile from the accepted terms or demand a price reduction as a matter of right based on a judgment in a different case with distinct facts.
Subject
Land Allotment - Allotment of Land to Schools
Act Referred
Delhi School Education Act/Rules, 1973
Headnote
Allotment of a plot of land for locating the school – This appeal is preferred by Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development Officer, Ministry of urban Development against judgment of Delhi High Court allowing writ petition filed by respondents with certain directions - First respondent New Delhi (Sabha) and second respondent is President of first respondent - Respondent applied to Land and Development Officer (L&DO) for allotment of a plot of land for locating the school being run by them - L&DO allotted in 1963, a plot of land annual ground rent of five per cent thereon - Allotment could not, however, be given effect to - Sabha was representing repeatedly for allotment of the land - Another letter of allotment was issued stipulating very same rate - As required by said letter, the Sabha deposited an amount - Physical possession of 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 for allotment - Sabha continued to press for allotment – Held, Before parting with this case, court think it appropriate to observe that it is high time Government reviews entire policy relating to allotment of land to schools and other charitable institutions - Where public property is being given to such institutions practically free, stringent conditions have to be attached with respect to the user of the and the manner in which schools or other institutions established thereon shall function - Conditions imposed should be consistent with public interest and should always stipulate that in case of violation of any of those conditions, land be resumed by Government - Huge amounts are being charged by way of donations and fees - Question is whether there is any justification for allotting land at throw-away prices to such institutions - Allotment of land belonging to people at practically no price is meant or serving the public interest, i.e., spread of education or other charitable purposes; it is not meant to enable the allottees to make money or profiteer with the aid of public property - Court are sure that Government would take necessary measures in this behalf in light of the observations contained herein - Appeal is disposed of with the above direction - Judgment of High Court is set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the premium for additional land should be fixed at a previously proposed rate or the rate specified in the formal allotment letter. (Para 5 , 7 )
3. Acceptance of the formal allotment letter binds the allottee; subsequent requests for rate revision based on irrelevant precedents are not justified in law or fact. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. An allottee who accepts the terms of a land allotment offer cannot subsequently claim a right to a lower rate based on irrelevant precedents. (Para 8 )
5. High Court judgment set aside; respondents directed to approach the government for reconsideration of the allotment rate. (Para 9 )
6. Can an allottee challenge the rate of land allotment after accepting the offer?
No. Once an allottee accepts the terms of an allotment letter and makes part payment, they are bound by those terms. They cannot later claim a right to a revised price based on a judgment between third parties that is not relevant to their specific facts. (Para 8 )
7. What is the legal consequence if an allottee claims their acceptance of an allotment offer is vitiated?
If the allottee contends that their acceptance is vitiated and they are not bound by it, the offer contained in the allotment letter would lapse, and there would be no allotment of land in favor of the allottee. (Para 8 )
8. How should public land be managed when allotted to charitable institutions at concessional rates?
The government should impose stringent conditions regarding land use and institutional functioning to ensure public interest and prevent commercialization, including a clause allowing the government to resume the land if conditions are violated. (Para 11 )
JUDGMENT
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. - Leave granted.
2. This appeal is preferred by the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development Officer, Ministry of urban Development against the judgment of the Delhi High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents with certain directions. The first respondent is Jain Sabha, New Delhi (Sabha) and the second respondent is the President of the first respondent - Sabha.
3. The Sabha applied to the Land and Development Officer (L&DO) for allotment of a plot of land for locating the school being run by them. The L&DO allotted in 1963, a plot of land admeasuring 1.363 acres @ Rs. 5000 per acre plus the annual ground rent of five per cent 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. As required by the said letter, the Sabha deposited an amount of Rs. 7185 on 8-7-1967. The physical possession of the land could not, however, be delivered to the Sabha on account of existence of certain structures which could not be vacated or removed. The Sabha continued to press for allotment. The Sabha continued to press for allotment. A question was also raised in Parliament on 27-2-1978 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 a change in the 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 14-10-1986, the L&DO informed the Sabha that an extent of 2.15 acres is being allotted to the Sabha for running the school @ Rupees eight lakhs per acre. The Sabha represented against the price proposed to be charged. On 18-7-1990, a formal letter of allotment was issued in respect of 2.15 acres of land. So far as the rate is concerned, a distinction was made therein. With respect to the extent of 1.363 acres (which was the area originally allotted or intended to be allotted to the Sabha), consideration was fixed at Rs. 5000 per acre but in respect of the excess land of 0.787 acre, consideration was fixed at Rupees thirty-eight lakhs per acre. The 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 16-8-1990, the Sabha deposited a sum of Rupees ten lakhs towards the consideration demanded.
4. On 5-9-1990, the Delhi High Court delivered its judgment in Delhi Development Authority v. Lala Amar Nath Educational & Human Society [42 (1990) DLT 651] holding that in respect of Nazul land allotted on "no profit no loss" basis in 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 judgment, the Sabha filed the writ petition (from which this appeal arises) in Delhi High Court questioning the demand of consideration @ Rupees thirty-eight lakhs per acre for part of the land allotted to it, i.e., in respect of an extent of 0.787 acre. 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 0.787 acre. The Sabha is also made liable to pay proportionate ground rent and other charges in accordance with law. The money already paid the 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 tw
