Back
2002 Supreme(Del) 1852
High Court Of Delhi
R.N.GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
C.M. 3694 of 2000
Decided On : 12/18/2002
ASIM MEHROTRA, Rajesh Mahajan
Headnote:Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 - Rule 20(e) — Allotment of nazul land — Sponsorship requirement — Petitioner applying to respondent-DDA for allotment of land to start a new technical education institute — All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) granting permission — Institutional Allotment Committee (IAC) examined the matter but its recommendation rejected by the competent authority for want of recommendation/sponsorship by a Department of Delhi Administration or a Ministry of the Central Government under Rule 20(e) — Recommendation of AICTE not sufficient as it relates to technical feasibility, and it is only subsequent to establishment of the institute that a proper verification to be done by AICTE as to whether all norms are adhered to, its letter is only a letter of viability — Right of allotment not denied and absence of government sponsorship, the only hurdle in allotment of institutional land — Petitioner not challenging validity of rules laying down formalities for allotment — No relief can be granted — Writ petition dismissed.
Held:
The Institutional Allotment Committee did make the recommendation in favor of the petitioner for allotment of land but the same was not accepted by the competent authority. The role of the committee is to make the recommendation and the same cannot be final till it is accepted by the competent authority. There is thus force in the contention that the said committee ix only an Advisory Body.
The Nazul Rules provide for disposal of nazul land and it is provided therein in terms of Rule 20(e) that recommendation/sponsorship has to be obtained from the State Government or the Central Government which condition was not fulfilled in the present case.
The petitioner has admittedly not challenged the rules nor was the petitioner willing to challenge the rules by filing another petition. Thus the rules have to be read as they are and thus have to be complied with. In the absence of said sponsorship or recommendation from the Government of NCT of Delhi or the Central Government, the petitioner would not be entitled to the land in question and would thus not be entitled to the writ as claimed in the present writ petition.
( 1 ) THE petitioner association is a registered society which applied to respondent DDA in October 1998 for allotment of land for Aditya College of Pharmacy and Science. The North Western Regional Committee of all India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) addressed a letter dated 18. 11. 1998 to the DDA with a copy marked to the petitioner granting permission to the society to start a new institute. A confirmation was sought that the land for the construction of the institute had been allotted to the society which should be of minimum area of 1 acre. This letter is stated to have been issued in response to a letter of society dated 9. 9. 1998 stating that the land for construction of the institute shall be made available in case the institute gets a sponsorship certificate from AICTE. The college was proposed to be started from 1999 session and since no allotment of land had taken place, a representation was made on 5. 3. 1999 to the Minister of Urban Development in this behalf. It appears that in view of the said representation a query was made to the respondent in response whereto the Director (Land) of the respondent informed the Ministry that the request of the society was under consideration and that a plot measuring 850 square meters at Vasant Kunj had been proposed for alotment which was to be placed before the Expert Comuittee in its next meeting. The matter was placed before the Institutional Allotment committee on 6. 4. 1999 and the Committee recommended the said allotment of land to the petitioner society subject to the consent of the society and the legal position of the plot.
( 2 ) THE petitioner did not still hear from the respondent about the allotment and send a reminder dated 9. 3. 2000 and thereafter filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to allot the institutional plot No. 2, Pocket II, Sector B, Vasant kunj, New Delhi measuring 850 square meters a recommended by the Institutional Allotment Committee.
( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the responden it is stated that the petitioner had failed to complet the basic formalities as required for allotment of land inasmuch as the requisite sponsorship letter from the department of Delhi Administration or Ministry of central Government had not been submitted. This was stated so on the basis of rule 20 (e) of Delhi development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazu land) Rules 1981, which is as under : 20. Allotment to certain pub ic institutions.- (1) No allotment of Nazul land to public institution referred to in rule 5 sha. 1 be made unless (e) allotment to such institution is sponsored or recommended by a Department of the delhi Administration or a Ministry of he Central Government. "
( 4 ) IT has been stated in the counter affidavit that the letter issued by the AICTE will not suffic inasmuch as the same relates to technical feasibility to be examined by the AICTE and that the formalitie required for allotment of nazul land have to by completed by the petitioner in accordance with the sai nazul Rules. A clear averment has been made that the case of the petitioner for allotment of land was put up before the competent authority but the same was rejected due to want of proper sponsorship under the nazul Rules. It is further stated that the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 20. 9. 1999 and subsequent letters dated 16. 5. 2000 and 29. 8. 2000 were also sent in this behalf. The letter dated 20. 9. 1999 is as under :
" Sub : Regarding allotment of land. Sir, this has reference to your applicationfor allotment of land for setting up Pharmacy and Science College. In this connection, I am directed to request you to please get your case sponsorted from the AICTF or Directorate of Training and Technical, Government of nctd, so that your case could be processed further. "
( 5 ) THE rights of allotment to the petitioner are not being denied and the absence of the aforesaid recommendation is stated to be the only hurdle in t
